A More Insightful Critique of a Recent Post and My Response
A recent post, titled Based on This Argument Alone The Best Any Believer Can Claim is Agnosticism, has gained a lot of attention and been sidetracked by Christians who seek to defend their beliefs rather than think through it. To these Christians let me show you a much better way to argue your case, coming from a gay guy named Gaylord Martha Focker on Facebook, whose beliefs I can't say for sure, even if his his response is dead wrong:
He wrote:
Here's what I wrote:
He wrote:
Sorry, John, this argument is not that good. First, believers can point out that you are putting too high an epistemic standard on what beliefs are justified, and that there is no reason to single out belief in God with that standard. Secondly, and this point follows from the first, why be prejudiced against theistic belief in our epistemic endeavors and not apply skepticism to our knowledge in general? Brain in vat scenarios put everyone in the same boat, epistemologically speaking, since any experience that you think you are having of an actual external reality would be exactly mimicked by a brain in vat scenario.Now that's at least dealing head on with the argument, if you've read it.
If theism suffers at the hands of your skepticism, then so does atheism and agnosticism itself since ALL knowledge and lack of knowledge and what we can know about knowledge can be thrown into chaos by brain in vat scenarios. So here is my question: Let's say that your brain is being prodded by some evil Cartesian demon and it tricks you into thinking that all of your experiences are real. And from an experiential standpoint your experiences seem real. How do you know that you are not being tricked, into let's say, the belief that God probably does not exist? I mean, maybe the evidence for God is so clear and overwhelming that it takes a Cartesian demon to trick atheists into thinking there is no good evidence for God. What is your answer to your own skepticism? Thanks.
Here's what I wrote:
Nice response Gaylord, but agnosticism does not suffer at the hands of such skepticism if by that we claim not to know about such matters, or if it's a type of skepticism that demands there must be reasons to accept an affirmative (or definitive) answer to the riddles of existence. Lacking in such an answer I am an atheist.
And even if your criticism of this argument is correct then gone are the epistemological merits to the brain in the vat, dream, and Matrix scenarios that apologists like to use too. If you criticize this possibility based upon what's probable, then I can likewise say the same things about those other scenarios. It seems that apologists use this trick ever since Plantinga to subsequently drive a whole lot of theological assumptions through that small crevice in order to say we're in the same epistemological boat. We're not. Not by a long shot. I’m not affirming anything. I’m denying these affirmative theological answers.
All this particular argument shows is that there is no way to argue that such a trickster god might not exist on the assumption there is a god of some kind. You assume a god, I presume? Okay then, show me he isn’t a trickster.
Oh, and in answer to your own scenario that a good god would allow me to be tricked into not believing by an evil demon I simply say that since I cannot believe differently I should have no worries about any divine judgment from that kind of god. But if I were ever shown this is what is happening to me then I would change my mind, or I might have disgust for such a god who would allow this to even happen in the first place.
Cheers.
17 comments:
the more insightful critique echoes some of the same things I have said.
As for your answer, We've been down that road and you just gave your judgment without an explanation.
If I understand it:
JL: there's no evidence to suggest that there is a god or that miracles happened so at best we should be undecided.
GMF: but we can't prove we aren't brains in vats or that pixies aren't manipulating our brains so your argument fails!
JL: Um yeah... Our evidence is just as good for those things as for God so you're we should also be agnostic, at best.
GMF's arguments would be interesting if it was an established fact that we were brains in vats or we were disembodied brains being tricked into believing in an external reality but as this isn't the case, it seems like a STRENGTH of scepticism that it tells us to avoid firm beliefs in these multitudes of unsupported claims. I'm afraid I've entirely missed the slippery slope argument here.
I think the question really is whether or not there is a Christian god, or a god who interacts with this planet and has given us information on who he is by some divine revelation. If we can disprove the revelation, then the problem of our perceptions becomes moot on the subject of the existence of a specific deity.
One defines themselves religiously by the doctrine they hold. Disprove the revealed doctrine, especially within the revelatory text, disprove the faith.
If we can disprove the revelation, then the problem of our perceptions becomes moot on the subject of the existence of a specific deity.
John goes for a cummulative case approach. Of course what you are saying would work to that effect, but for that matter, if this argument works, then you could consider disproof of revelation to be moot. Better yet, consider two types of arguments that are strong even if they'd both make the other moot (but not necessarily in a self defeating way).
Still, I think John is better off sticking to biblical problems than these sorts that are of the kind that proves too much for the new atheists who are sometimes inconsistent in their application of skepticism.
By the way, I'll just toot my horn here again and note that John has called my critiques insightful even though it took someone else to articulate them to whom he gives credit.
I think Gaylord makes a number of mistakes that I have tried to point out in other comments.
First, he commits the fallacy of equivalence between the “faith” in science and reason and the “faith in God. They are DIFFERENT faiths altogether.
Second, brain in a vat scenarios are just science fiction. They are superficially plausible, but raise more questions than they answer. Where did our brain come from? Who put it in the vat? Why did they put it in the vat? By what mechanism did they transfer our brain to the vat? What degree of technology would be required to perform this operation? Were the brains synthetically generated, or were they surgically removed from organically made humans? There are no answers to any of these questions, and thus this just someone’s overactive imagination designed to challenge our intuitions. Then again, stage magicians do the same thing, but no-one believes that what they are doing is REALLY magic or genuinely violating the laws of physics, except maybe the most credulous of morons.
Third, his claim is empirically false. Look at atheists and agnostics in the world. They are able to function just fine in the world without any defect or detriment. Look at people who believe that the external world is unreal, that other people do not exist, or who are unable to use their logical faculties properly. Are they functioning properly? No. They are either dead, barely functioning on the street, or in mental hospitals, because they are PSYCHOTIC. In other words, if God does not exist, then the world is NATURAL. That’s all. But if reason, logic, the evidence of our senses are all rejected, then the world is CRAZY. BIG difference.
Fourth, my answer to his statement that “maybe the evidence for God is so clear and overwhelming that it takes a Cartesian demon to trick atheists into thinking there is no good evidence for God” is that he is right. This is yet another possibility. What I conclude from this is that we should stop talking about anything beyond the natural world, which we can understand and comprehend to a large extent.
I mean, what’s the point? Sure, maybe his scenario is true, but we have no way of knowing. And that’s the whole thrust of my argument. Why are people getting so riled up trying to defend something that is beyond our conceptual abilities, inscrutable, mysterious and utterly transcendent? Just admit that your knowledge of this matter is non-existent, and STOP TALKING ABOUT IT. In that sense, I agree with Karen Armstrong.
Where I disagree is that she writes as if the transcendent is a dimension BEYOND our own that we aspire to make contact with through our religious practices, and that by inculcating our compassion and empathy we diminish our egos, and therefore make contact with this boundless and unlimited realm. Fine. I look at it differently. If you say that the beyond is unknowable and unspeakable, then I look at that definition in the same way that I look at a square circle, i.e. an incoherent concept that doesn’t actually refer to anything at all. In other words, it’s not like there is a square circle in some realm beyond our logical understanding, but rather that it is a meaningless concept that only superficially looks meaningful because it is composed of words. Rather, it points to NOTHING, not as a big something of nothingness, but NOTHING. Period.
Similarly, this great transcendent beyond that she writes about is not some big something of nothingness or whatever the hell she is talking about. It is just nothing. Period. Full stop. Anything else is just projecting our imagination into Square Circle Land, which is just ridiculous.
First, he commits the fallacy of equivalence between the “faith” in science and reason and the “faith in God. They are DIFFERENT faiths altogether.
They aren't different faiths alltogether they are exactly the same in some respects. They share dependence upon the community, they share absolute unprovability. They differ elsewhere and that does not mean they can't be compared in the slightest or that they can't be equated in some respects.
Second, brain in a vat scenarios are just science fiction. They are superficially plausible, but raise more questions than they answer.
Likewise, your original scenario (which this is all about) is just theological fiction. It raises more questions than it answers.
Also, that the truth must have explanatory power
this just someone’s overactive imagination designed to challenge our intuitions.
exactly like your scenario that a malignant God is tricking us.
Third, his claim is empirically false. Look at atheists and agnostics in the world. They are able to function just fine in the world without any defect or detriment. Look at people who believe that the external world is unreal, that other people do not exist, or who are unable to use their logical faculties properly. Are they functioning properly? No.
What people? I highly doubt that solipsism is found in the DSM IV. But even if that is true, a solipsist can function in the world just fine by treating the fake world generated by mind as a game with rules.
What I conclude from this is that we should stop talking about anything beyond the natural world, which we can understand and comprehend to a large extent.
Why does your conclusion follow? Your conclusion only suggests that we could be tricked by a demon to believe that God doesn't exist, so we should just swallow the deception. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
I mean, what’s the point? Sure, maybe his scenario is true, but we have no way of knowing. And that’s the whole thrust of my argument.
ergo, your skepticism on these grounds is at home with radicle skepticism, so lets not worry about these scenarios nor your own.
Why are people getting so riled up trying to defend something that is beyond our conceptual abilities, inscrutable, mysterious and utterly transcendent?
Is that what you are talking about? It's not what I'm talking about. That God's ineffibility swallows up any positive knowledge about him is a specific theological claim that is not accepted by all Christians (though interestingly, this debate is almost interreligious and is closely linked to the debate on the personhood of God).
Just admit that your knowledge of this matter is non-existent, and STOP TALKING ABOUT IT.
Those of us who agree that God is personal and has made himself known to us agree with you that those who insist on the absolute infinitude to the point of absolute inneffability should stop talking about it. Ironically they say alot about it.
John you obviously missed his reference to "Meet the Parents" in his pseudonymous name. That is actually funny and I give him credit for that.
Otherwise -- his argument fails for the reasons you explain.
Hyperskepticism or solipsism are always possible responses, but they end discussions.
If you want to continue to have a discussion, you need to accept that things outside yourself are real and that we can obtain evidence about them.
Even, you miss the point of bringing up radicle skepticism. The point is some of the criticisms of faith if followed through consistently would lead to radicle skepticism.
The possibility of radicle skepticism is not our problem. it is yours if you subscribe to a certain class of arguments such as the one that dguller offered (which is what this post is talking about).
it's also a problem for those who insist that all knowledge can only be obtained via reason, empirical data or science in general because there are beliefs that we have that cannot be validated on those grounds. In the absence of those beliefs (such as belief in an external reality) then we are left with radicle skepticism.
Aren't Christians just as radically skeptical towards the claims other world religions?
I guess us skeptics should not be so darn radical? If we just had a little faith we would believe what exactly?
I am leaning towards Sikhism, if only I can shake my over-the-top skepticism.
Rob:
First, you still do not understand that, despite superficial similarities, “faith in science” and “faith in God” are fundamentally different types of “faith”. As such, you cannot make an argument justifying the latter on acceptance of the former, because the meaning of “faith” in the two concepts is different. In order to make that argument, they would have to be IDENTICAL concepts, which even you apparently accept. Since they are different, then it is not OBVIOUS that accepting faith in science requires accepting faith in God. You would have to show that the former implies the latter, which is unclear. Provide an argument, if you disagree.
Second, you say that my Cosmic Deceiver scenario is just “theological fiction” that “raises more questions than it answers”, and thus should be rejected alongside the brain-in-a-vat thought experiment. That is the point! My Cosmic Deceiver scenario, like yours, and like the brain in a vat scenario, are ALL just FICTION. And that is because there are no objective facts about our world that can be brought to bear to decide between them. If there are no facts from the world that are justifying these ideas, then they are groundless and coming from our imagination. And I disbelief in the idea that just because my imagination can generate some possibility that that implies that that possibility has any validity or epistemic weight. Unless it can be grounded in the empirical world, which is all we have access to, then it is just speculation, fiction, and fantasy.
Third, my thought experiment WAS designed to challenge your intuition. The intuition that I hoped to challenge was the idea that the existence of God can be justified by demonstrating that his existence is possible, given the objective facts of the world. My contention is that his existence is possible, but then again so is any number of other divine scenarios that you have no grounds to reject, except from within the assumptions of your own concocted divine scenario. That is circular reasoning.
Fourth, I don’t worry about radical scepticism in the same way that I don’t worry about a square circle. The ideas contained within those concepts are incoherent and contradictory, and thus not worth entertaining, except as a way of confusing really stupid people. I also don’t worry about the existence of God, because it is based upon fallacious arguments and subjective experiences that have alternative explanations, and does not provide any useful explanatory purpose, except in the sense that one can imagine any number of scenarios that “explain” the empirical world. However, then you are stuck with how you tell which are true, and we’re back where we started.
Fifth, I think that you have placed the onus upon the wrong person. The problem of infinite possible divine scenarios is not a problem for me. It is not my contention that one of these possible scenarios MUST be true. That is YOUR contention. I believe that they are ALL false, because there is nothing beyond the world, and if there is, then we have no concepts or words about it, and should just shut up.
The onus is upon you to differentiate between these different scenarios, which would require using ONLY rational arguments whose premises are based upon empirical facts. You would not be able to say that God could not be a deceiver, because he is fundamentally good. That is NOT evident from the empirical facts of the world, and is just an assumption within your scenario. No circular reasoning allowed.
I truly look forward to your presentation and justification of the criteria and methodology by which you differentiate between the infinite number of divine scenarios.
Rob:
And one more thing. Look up "derealization" in the DSM.
Aren't Christians just as radically skeptical towards the claims other world religions?
yes, not on the grounds of skepticism for skepticism but for very specific reasons. And for that, you'd have to get into the very specifics of other religions and the specifics of Christianity. Nothing here can be determined from just the general observation you made.
Aren't Christians just as radically skeptical towards the claims other world religions?
yes, not on the grounds of skepticism for skepticism but for very specific reasons. And for that, you'd have to get into the very specifics of other religions and the specifics of Christianity. Nothing here can be determined from just the general observation you made.
Then you should accept that many of us have specific reasons for being skeptical of Christian claims. It is not just a case of hyper-skepticism.
Rob wrote:
The possibility of radicle skepticism is not our problem. it is yours if you subscribe to a certain class of arguments such as the one that dguller offered (which is what this post is talking about).
Rob,
I think what dguller is trying to point out is that that God, and the supernatural in general, can be easily varied. You seem to be choosing a variation that you prefer or grew up with, rather than choosing a explanation that best explains what we observe.
For example, I'd suggest that not all explanations are equal and that there is such thing as a flaw in an explanation.
Please see. A new way to explain explanation by David Deutsch, which addresses the kind of explanations that the supernatural presents and how they are easily varied.
I think this is kind of variations of God that dguller is pointing with his original argument.
"Faith" in Science and "Faith" in god are fundamentally different. Science is a methodology that takes theories, tests them, rejects or accepts them and then starts the process over again. There is no process for testing theories regarding theology. There is no consistent process or product from god. Science gives us tools with which we can further our understanding and control over our environment. God give us no tools that have repeatable and consistent results.
Furthermore, the god that is posited by the lack of negation is a god that has no specific identity and therefore cannot have an active role in the lives of supplicants. That god has no value other than as a debating point. That god does not exist in any functional sense.
Looks like the link to David's video was somehow lost. You can find the video here.. here
"or I might have disgust for such a god who would allow this to even happen in the first place."
You are already blaming God for what a being of choice does to you to test you to see if you LOVE Him.
A being of choice is allowed to test you..to test "YOUR" choice.
If you say, "no I am not, because there is no god" - please understand that when you DO step inside the belief structure, you are blaming the alleged Creator within the belief structure rather than the one who made the "choice" to deceive you. You were not created a puppet..you were give choices.
Post a Comment