Atheists - a question

[MichaelLewis]

I totally disagree (hey, you predicted that! That’s cool ). The non-God crowd generally attack our beliefs as unscientific and illogical, but science itself shows that effects don’t happen without causes. It is irrational and illogical to think that the universe and all in it just happened by accident. Things don’t get more complicated when left alone, they get simpler. Like the tomato I left in the fridge too long. It’s not turning into a reptile or a bird or any other animal. It’s being broken down by a mold that is simpler than the tomato once was. Things left on their own deteriorate. Remember? Science and reason themselves are arguments for, not against, God. Anyway, I’m still waitin’ fer somebody to tell me how they think all that is came to be without a cause…

Our notion of causality depends upon our experiences within an ordered universe. Science presumes there are “cause-effect” relationships (even probabilistic ones) that will always hold and have always held, it could never demonstrate this. We observe patterns of events and other relationships, notice that they have always held in our experience, and assume that they always will. But there is no reason to suppose that they MUST hold. The only reason to suppose they will continue to hold is the fact that it seems they always have so far, but that regularity itself may break down, and their need be no explanation for it. There can be no ultimate explanation for any regularity that doesn’t make reference to some other regularity.

God’s willing things to be a particular way always “causes” things to be that way. We might say that there is a “law” that guarantees that reality will always correspond to God’s will. Is their some explanation as to why this law consistently holds? Either it just happens to hold and there is no explanation, or it can be explained in terms of some other “law”, which itself would call for an explanation. We are going to have unexplained relationships in any case; it isn’t clear how God, even if we grant that he exists, ultimately explains anything at all. He just shifts the question from “Why does this universe exist/exhibit the qualities it does?” to “Why does God’s willing that this universe exist/exhibit the qualities it does correspond with its existence/exhibition of those qualities?” Science does not transcend the problem of induction. Like the rest of us, scientists must pragmatically assume that the universe has always and will always continue to exhibit some set of basic regularities that explain the other regularities that they observe. None of us can meaningfully speak of the “cause” of the universe without appealing to some other (mysterious) set of regularities.

On a personal note, once I fully appreciated this I stopped wondering why the universe exists and turned my attention to the question of what it is and what consciousness is. I think it is possible that there is a God, but neither he nor anything else can provide a satisfying explanation of the universe. In the end, what is is; and there is nothing more to be said about it than that.

 

[hasikelee]

On a personal note, once I fully appreciated this I stopped wondering why the universe exists and turned my attention to the question of what it is and what consciousness is. I think it is possible that there is a God, but neither he nor anything else can provide a satisfying explanation of the universe. In the end, what is is; and there is nothing more to be said about it than that.

Do you apply this declarative approach to everything in life? How do you make decisions if you cannot infer or conclude anything? If you cannot judge anything or derive anything further than what something is, then do you define yourself as nothing more than a living entity, without a name or past, or future?

And how can you be sure it is what it is?

Usually human minds are very inquisitive and inductive. We look at something and delve into it, we try to see what is behind the object, the meaning, the ideal. Why do you think you depart from this norm? Was it an experience, an overall effect from a lifestyle, or maybe just your personality?

 

[MichaelLewis]

Do you apply this declarative approach to everything in life? How do you make decisions if you cannot infer or conclude anything? If you cannot judge anything or derive anything further than what something is, then do you define yourself as nothing more than a living entity, without a name or past, or future?

And how can you be sure it is what it is?

Usually human minds are very inquisitive and inductive. We look at something and delve into it, we try to see what is behind the object, the meaning, the ideal. Why do you think you depart from this norm? Was it an experience, an overall effect from a lifestyle, or maybe just your personality?

I’m not sure I know what you mean by “declarative approach”.

Like everyone else, I use induction everyday; I assume that a great number of regularities will continue to hold, without even thinking about them. I justify these assumptions pragmatically: If I didn’t accept induction, I would have NO basis on which to plan my actions. I’m just not willing to apply my assumptions out of context, to the origins of the assumed-to-be-regular universe in which I reside.

As to certainty, I am absolutely sure of very little, and I want to be open to the possibility that I am wrong about almost everything. But I don’t need to be absolutely sure of my beliefs to act upon them.

I am inquisitive, but I’ve realized that sometimes there can’t be an answer in principle. When I understand why this is the case with respect to a specific question, I take that as a sort of answer to the question itself. It is intellectually satisfying to me. There are still lots of things I wonder about; there may be more questions I have which really have no answers, but until I appreciate WHY this is so with respect to a particular question, I’ll keep wondering about it (that is, until I have a logical explanation as to why the phenomenon in question can’t itself be explained).

 

[hasikelee]

I’m not sure I know what you mean by “declarative approach”.

Like everyone else, I use induction everyday; I assume that a great number of regularities will continue to hold, without even thinking about them. I justify these assumptions pragmatically: If I didn’t accept induction, I would have NO basis on which to plan my actions. I’m just not willing to apply my assumptions out of context, to the origins of the assumed-to-be-regular universe in which I reside.

As to certainty, I am absolutely sure of very little, and I want to be open to the possibility that I am wrong about almost everything. But I don’t need to be absolutely sure of my beliefs to act upon them.

I am inquisitive, but I’ve realized that sometimes there can’t be an answer in principle. When I understand why this is the case with respect to a specific question, I take that as a sort of answer to the question itself. It is intellectually satisfying to me. There are still lots of things I wonder about; there may be more questions I have which really have no answers, but until I appreciate WHY this is so with respect to a particular question, I’ll keep wondering about it (that is, until I have a logical explanation as to why the phenomenon in question can’t itself be explained).

What a well-thought out post! Thanks for replying. I just thought in your post it sounded is if you decided you couldn’t find out with certainty, therefore whatever you know about it now is all that there is to know.

It just sounded a little off. I was set off into thinking, “how in the world can you think that way in life?”

Thanks for the clarification. Although, one thing I don’t understand: if you are uncertain about very little, does this mean nevertheless you do deny a supernatural existence, or are you open to all possibilities, or only some possibilities? And if the last, are your choices on which possibilities to ponder/accept based on personal experience or preference?

 

[MichaelLewis]

What a well-thought out post! Thanks for replying. I just thought in your post it sounded is if you decided you couldn’t find out with certainty, therefore whatever you know about it now is all that there is to know.

It just sounded a little off. I was set off into thinking, “how in the world can you think that way in life?”

Thanks for the clarification. Although, one thing I don’t understand: if you are uncertain about very little, does this mean nevertheless you do deny a supernatural existence, or are you open to all possibilities, or only some possibilities? And if the last, are your choices on which possibilities to ponder/accept based on personal experience or preference?

Thank you and you’re welcome.

I’m open to anything conceivable. I don’t even really like the natural/supernatural distinction very much, though I admit I do employ it myself sometimes. I’m an agnostic with respect to the existence of god(s), not an atheist, unless you define “atheist” as simply someone who isn’t a theist.

Michael

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Michael Lewis

In any case, I don’t want to believe falsehoods, whether they are comforting or not.

You don’t know for a fact that Christianity is false … though apparently you think it must be comforting. Another sign that God is behind it … after all, being our Creator, wouldn’t God want to comfort us with our hope in life everlasting?

 

[San_Patricio]

Thank you and you’re welcome.

I’m open to anything conceivable. I don’t even really like the natural/supernatural distinction very much, though I admit I do employ it myself sometimes. I’m an agnostic with respect to the existence of god(s), not an atheist, unless you define “atheist” as simply someone who isn’t a theist.

Michael

It sounds to me like your aganosticism and science are based as much on faith as my Catholicism is. What do you mean when you say there is no proof for the “cause-effect” relationship? There is ample proof everywhere in our daily lives! You don’t even need science to see that. Further, it seems by your reasoning that we can never really KNOW anything… If that were true, then science truly is meaningless, as it is just a series of assumptions about what we think we are observing, and even those obsrevations may not be real. If this is your position- well, it sounds like semantic impure personal acts.

 

[ribozyme]

It sounds to me like your aganosticism and science are based as much on faith as my Catholicism is. What do you mean when you say there is no proof for the “cause-effect” relationship? There is ample proof everywhere in our daily lives! You don’t even need science to see that. Further, it seems by your reasoning that we can never really KNOW anything… If that were true, then science truly is meaningless, as it is just a series of assumptions about what we think we are observing, and even those obsrevations may not be real. If this is your position- well, it sounds like semantic impure personal acts.

There is no proof for any cause and effect relationship that we observe empirically. All we can observe is correlation, and we naturally associate high correlation with causation, but it does not prove that there is a causal connection between two events. How do you know there is a necessay connection between two events. Of course, this is a classic problem in philosophy brought up by David Hume.

 

[San_Patricio]

There is no proof for any cause and effect relationship that we observe empirically. All we can observe is correlation, and we naturally associate high correlation with causation, but it does not prove that there is a causal connection between two events. How do you know there is a necessay connection between two events. Of course, this is a classic problem in philosophy brought up by David Hume.

Yes, I’m aware of such claims, as well as ideas that everything is illusion and we can make the world whatever way we imagine it just by imagining it to be so. Most of us however, don’t live in a world of such meaningless abstractions. The relationship between cause and effect is quite real and can be quite easily demonstrated, in spite of Hume’s claims or yours. If that is what you base your non-belief in God on, well what can anyone say? The world is rational (except for human behavior) and easily observable. To claim otherwise is to just be deliberately obtuse. If you walk into a wall, you’ll bump your head- cause: walking into wall, effect: bumped head! Do you really want to deny that?

 

[MichaelLewis]

Michael Lewis

In any case, I don’t want to believe falsehoods, whether they are comforting or not.

You don’t know for a fact that Christianity is false … though apparently you think it must be comforting. Another sign that God is behind it … after all, being our Creator, wouldn’t God want to comfort us with our hope in life everlasting?

All sorts of things are possible. I don’t think anyone can be absolutely certain one way or the other.

As I indicated, I think religion is a mixed bag. My life is in may ways poorer now that I’m not a theist. I just indicated that there was one respect in which it is not; I don’t worry about being dead. If I wanted comfort above all and were capable of it, I would believe in a benevolent God. But I don’t.

I don’t think it is very fruitful to play the motives game Gilbert. You may have been avoiding God when you didn’t believe, but you shouldn’t assume that other non-theists are. Many of us have struggled and suffered a good deal over religious questions, and have simply concluded that we can’t justify belief in God’s existence.

I don’t know if God would want to comfort us with hope in life everlasting. But I think many of us would like to find some reason to be comforted by the belief that we might enjoy such a life. Certainly I would.

Michael

 

[ribozyme]

Yes, I’m aware of such claims, as well as ideas that everything is illusion and we can make the world whatever way we imagine it just by imagining it to be so. Most of us however, don’t live in a world of such meaningless abstractions. The relationship between cause and effect is quite real and can be quite easily demonstrated, in spite of Hume’s claims or yours. If that is what you base your non-belief in God on, well what can anyone say? The world is rational (except for human behavior) and easily observable. To claim otherwise is to just be deliberately obtuse. If you walk into a wall, you’ll bump your head- cause: walking into wall, effect: bumped head! Do you really want to deny that?

Well, you cannot prove that your subjective perception of pain is caused by bumping your head into the wall. All you have are the principles of induction (you observed that you bumped you head into the wall before and you preceive pain). Intuitively, one will say the pain is caused by bumping your head into the wall because of a high corrolation of the events bumping your head into a wall and feeling pain. The pain might be caused by something else instead of the impact with the wall in that particular case, but you cannot prove that at that time, your pain was caused by bumping your head into the wall.

I thank you for bringing up the idea that the world might be an illusion; what we perceive does not describe “reality” at all. This might be a correct hypothesis, but to an empiricist who has to rely on his sense, an empiricist cannot provide evidence against this through their observations. Remember that scientific models that describe an observable phenomenon do not directly describe physical reality, but they are the products of a human mind attempting to comprehend the phenomenon. Thus scientific theories are subjective interpretations that attempt to describe objective reality. This is not arbitrary as it seems, as we can dismiss a hypothesis by examining whether it explains known phenomenon and its consistency with new data. Since they are subjective interpretations and do not completely describe reality, they are tentative and subject to change when we find a model is insufficient to explain a new phenomenon.

 

[San_Patricio]

That is absolutely arbitrary, based on your agument, as the “natural world” that the models correspond to is only perceivable through our senses. I am aware that our senses are subject to error, but to dismiss them completely is absurd. Cause and effect can be proven. You can do the same thing or watch the same thing over and over with the same results. Is that not what science requires for “proof”? If not, then mathematics is also not true, and science is unreliable because we can only perform and observe science though our own unreliable senses. A few posts ago you stated that evolution was true (which the Catholic Church does not deny), but how can you show evolution without cause and effect? How can you demonstrate anything to be true if you deny the evidence of your senses, since all that we percieve is through the senses? Your own arguments against God throw out everything but God, as God does not depend upon us or our senses.

 

[MichaelLewis]

It sounds to me like your aganosticism and science are based as much on faith as my Catholicism is. What do you mean when you say there is no proof for the “cause-effect” relationship? There is ample proof everywhere in our daily lives! You don’t even need science to see that. Further, it seems by your reasoning that we can never really KNOW anything… If that were true, then science truly is meaningless, as it is just a series of assumptions about what we think we are observing, and even those obsrevations may not be real. If this is your position- well, it sounds like semantic impure personal acts.
…
Yes, I’m aware of such claims, as well as ideas that everything is illusion and we can make the world whatever way we imagine it just by imagining it to be so. Most of us however, don’t live in a world of such meaningless abstractions. The relationship between cause and effect is quite real and can be quite easily demonstrated, in spite of Hume’s claims or yours. If that is what you base your non-belief in God on, well what can anyone say? The world is rational (except for human behavior) and easily observable. To claim otherwise is to just be deliberately obtuse. If you walk into a wall, you’ll bump your head- cause: walking into wall, effect: bumped head! Do you really want to deny that?

My point about causality is a conceptual point, and it has nothing directly to do with skepticism. We do indeed observe all sorts of constant conjunctions between events, and we classify some of them as causes and effects. It is fine to rely upon such notions; I do myself. But it makes no sense to apply them outside of an ordered universe; those who do make their abstractions meaningless by misapplying them. That was the point of my post.

We can be certain of almost nothing; yes I do believe that that is the case. But that does not make science meaningless, for we must ASSUME that regularities we have seen hold consistently in the past will continue to hold in the future if we are to make plans and act upon them. Accepting the findings of science and experience in general can be justified pragmatically.

(You are right of course ribozyme, it was Hume who first made this point about causality. I would have credited him, as I have in the past at CA, but it just inspires some folks to indulge in the genetic fallacy, and I’d like to see this point fairly addressed. It seems that many Catholics have some issues with Hume. Imagine that

 

[ribozyme]

That is absolutely arbitrary, based on your agument, as the “natural world” that the models correspond to is only perceivable through our senses. I am aware that our senses are subject to error, but to dismiss them completely is absurd. Cause and effect can be proven. You can do the same thing or watch the same thing over and over with the same results. Is that not what science requires for “proof”? If not, then mathematics is also not true, and science is unreliable because we can only perform and observe science though our own unreliable senses. A few posts ago you stated that evolution was true (which the Catholic Church does not deny), but how can you show evolution without cause and effect? How can you demonstrate anything to be true if you deny the evidence of your senses, since all that we percieve is through the senses? Your own arguments against God throw out everything but God, as God does not depend upon us or our senses.

I did not dismiss the ability for our senses to describe the physical world… I am saying that our senses do not directly descibe physical reality. Also, I assert that we cannot prove that an event is caused by another event. By acknowledging this, it does not follow that the concept of causality should be dismissed. I, of course, accept causality, but I will reiterate that we cannot prove a causal connection between an event.

 

[MichaelLewis]

I did not dismiss the ability for our senses to describe the physical world… I am saying that our senses do not directly descibe physical reality. Also, I assert that we cannot prove that an event is caused by another event. By acknowledging this, it does not follow that the concept of causality should be dismissed. I, of course, accept causality, but I will reiterate that we cannot prove a causal connection between an event.

I would go a bit further; I don’t see what it would mean for an event to be “caused” by another event if it doesn’t mean that one event always follows another (at some level of analyis, that is.) I understand logical nessesity, but not metaphysical nessesity differentiated from simply what has been and will be actual. I too accept causality, but define it only in terms of what has occured and will occur. I realize that Hume himself wasn’t making a metaphyisical point, but only an epistemic one.

Michael

 

[tdgesq]

But that does not make science meaningless, for we must ASSUME that regularities we have seen hold consistently in the past will continue to hold in the future if we are to make plans and act upon them. Accepting the findings of science and experience in general can be justified pragmatically.

I’d like to see this point fairly addressed. It seems that many Catholics have some issues with Hume. Imagine that.

I have broken my own rule on posts many times already today and am way overextended, so consider this a friendly request for information. I’ll do my best to respond.

I think what disturbs Catholics most about the problem of induction as it relates to empiricisim is that it appears to be inconsistent with the empiricist’s own epistemology. The uniformity of nature cannot itself be established by inductive reasoning. Yet inductive reasoning clearly presupposes the uniformity of nature. To your credit, you take a pragmatic approach. It has been a long long time since I’ve read anything by William James, so bear with me.

The pragmatic approach doesn’t seem to do any better than the empiricist’s. To just say that, well - nature has always been uniform, so I’ll go on expecting the same if and until it ever changes - doesn’t seem to be an answer. The whole problem is that there doesn’t appear to be any reason to believe that things will continue this way. The pragmatist’s expectation that it will falls prey to the same claims of irrationality as the empiricist.

Theist’s claim that God is responsible for the laws of nature and that the Bible is the word of God. If it can be found in the Scriptures that there is a guarantee of the uniformity of these laws, then it appears that the theist may have an answer. There are some mega assumptions here I freely admit. I’m really more interested in the pragmatist’s response to what I’ve posted. Thanks.

 

[MichaelLewis]

I have broken my own rule on posts many times already today and am way overextended, so consider this a friendly request for information. I’ll do my best to respond.

I think what disturbs Catholics most about the problem of induction as it relates to empiricisim is that it appears to be inconsistent with the empiricist’s own epistemology. The uniformity of nature cannot itself be established by inductive reasoning. Yet inductive reasoning clearly presupposes the uniformity of nature. To your credit, you take a pragmatic approach. It has been a long long time since I’ve read anything by William James, so bear with me.

The pragmatic approach doesn’t seem to do any better than the empiricist’s. To just say that, well - nature has always been uniform, so I’ll go on expecting the same if and until it ever changes - doesn’t seem to be an answer. The whole problem is that there doesn’t appear to be any reason to believe that things will continue this way. The pragmatist’s expectation that it will falls prey to the same claims of irrationality as the empiricist.

Theist’s claim that God is responsible for the laws of nature and that the Bible is the word of God. If it can be found in the Scriptures that there is a guarantee of the uniformity of these laws, then it appears that the theist may have an answer. There are some mega assumptions here I freely admit. I’m really more interested in the pragmatist’s response to what I’ve posted. Thanks.

Tdegsq,

While I have no epistemic, non-circular justification for believing that induction will continue to hold, if I have goals, I do have reason for ACTING as if induction were true. I reach to pick up my coffee cup with the expectation that I can reach it, I shift my weight in the chair I am sitting on, under the assumption that I’ll be more comfortable. Every deliberate act assumes that some regularities will continue to hold. If I accepted counter-induction, I couldn’t expect any particular result from any movement I might try to make. I might as well go limp, because any action or inaction is as good as any other from my point of view. Indeed, if induction isn’t going to hold, th*en trying to act *as if it were going to hold would be just as good as any other activities I might attempt. This is rather akin to Pascal’s Wager (except, I hope this is a good argument. J ). If I act as if induction will hold, and it does, I’m in good shape. If I don’t act as if induction will hold, and it does, I’m in worse shape. If induction doesn’t hold I’m in just as good of shape (as far as I could ever tell before hand) whether I act as if it will hold or not. So, it makes sense to act as if it will hold. Crucial to this argument is the epistemic point; I have no basis whatsoever for choosing any particular counter-inductive course of action. Additionally, if I can’t rely upon the fact that I can control my body in the way I would expect, I might as well try to do what I would normally do, even if I am a committed counter-inductivist. For perhaps if I “try” to move my hand to get the coffee cup, my foot will pop off and poor parsnip juice out of its toes and onto the floor, and that will taste like a great cup of coffee to me! Also, it so happens that I do believe that induction will hold, even though of course I know that is just prejudice on my part, and I WANT to act as if it will hold, so I might as well indulge myself and act as if it will.

The trouble with invoking God, as I pointed out in an earlier post, is that God’s power itself depends upon causality, which depends upon regularities, which are the problem. You might suggest that God has foreseen that induction will continue to hold; but perhaps he is wrong. He has been very insightful concerning past events (we will say), but everything he has foreseen from this point onward is not true. (If God is timeless, we might say that he timelessly does not know that he is mistaken about all moments in time past this one. We have no future he has access to, though he thinks he does.) Of course, God is supposed to be infallible. But if we can stipulate that God is infallible (I don’t think he could in principle even know that he was infallible if he was infallible, though he could still be infallible so long as he didn’t suppose that he knew he was.) why can’t we stipulate other things, like induction always holding?

BTW; I don’t consider myself a full-blown pragmatist, and I’m really not a big fan of James. (I do really like C.S. Peirce though) I think the arguement above is quite consistent with a generally empiricist outlook. It is a way of practically coping with inductive skepticism.

Michael

 

[tdgesq]

While I have no epistemic, non-circular justification for believing that induction will continue to hold, if I have goals, I do have reason for ACTING as if induction were true.

A couple of things at the outset before I reply. I obviously believe that inductive reasoning is a valid way of acquiring knowledge. So neither of us really believes that one day your foot will pop off and start pouring some kind of drinkable liquid. That would be contrary to our past experiences. The question is: do we have have good reason for believing that the past is a reliable guide to the future?

I appreciate your forthrightness that you have no epistemic justification for this belief. You fairly restate the question as whether you do have reason for ACTING as if induction were true. You conclude that you do. I contend that this is an irrational belief on your part, not just because it is arbitrary, but because it is internally inconsistent with your theory of knowledge.

Pragmatism is not an epistemology, at least not the way you are using it here. Empiricism is. If you accept the empirical theory of knowledge, then it is what let’s you know things about the world. The problem is it can’t account for the uniformity of nature, and therefore, cannot account for the validity of inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is inconsistent with empiricism. Rather than explore a new theory of knoweldge to account for this, you have instead tried to cure the problem with pragmatism. Let’s see if it works.

If I act as if induction will hold, and it does, I’m in good shape. If I don’t act as if induction will hold, and it does, I’m in worse shape. If induction doesn’t hold I’m in just as good of shape (as far as I could ever tell before hand) whether I act as if it will hold or not. So, it makes sense to act as if it will hold. Crucial to this argument is the epistemic point; I have no basis whatsoever for choosing any particular counter-inductive course of action.

Referring to the very last sentence, neither do you have any basis to choose an inductive course of action. Implicit in every comment you have made here is that induction will remain valid because it has in the past. But this is exactly the issue that Hume raises. It doesn’t help any to claim that your goals will be fulfilled by acting as if induction will remain valid. Why? Because you don’t have any reason to believe it, as you later admit:

Also, it so happens that I do believe that induction will hold, even though of course I know that is just prejudice on my part, and I WANT to act as if it will hold, so I might as well indulge myself and act as if it will.

This is a patently irrational. You know that you have good reason to believe induction is a valid way of obtaining knowledge, now go out and investigate the reasons.

The trouble with invoking God, as I pointed out in an earlier post, is that God’s power itself depends upon causality, which depends upon regularities, which are the problem.

According to Aquinas, God is the first cause. He is the ultimate cause of all other things. This is the cosmological argument. Unless you can give me some reason why he is bound by the laws that he ultimately caused, I cannot agree with you.

You might suggest that God has foreseen that induction will continue to hold; but perhaps he is wrong. He has been very insightful concerning past events (we will say), but everything he has foreseen from this point onward is not true. (If God is timeless, we might say that he timelessly does not know that he is mistaken about all moments in time past this one. We have no future he has access to, though he thinks he does.)

If God is in control of these laws in the first place, then his foreknoweldge is not necessary. Furthermore, if he exists outside of time, which makes some sense if you believe that he is the first cause of everything, then he will not be constrained by time. Same objection as above.

Of course, God is supposed to be infallible. But if we can stipulate that God is infallible (I don’t think he could in principle even know that he was infallible if he was infallible, though he could still be infallible so long as he didn’t suppose that he knew he was.) why can’t we stipulate other things, like induction always holding?

We don’t need to stipulate he is infallible (a term that is widely misunderstood), so long as we understand that he is the first cause. I don’t ask for a stipulation, but here is why I could never stipulate with you that induction will always hold. It is inconsistent with your epistemology. It is also arbitrary in that you request an exception to your own adopted theory of knowledge.

 

[tdgesq]

continued . . . .

You are correct that if we push back to our epistemic presuppositions far enough, we can always sit in our ivory towers and accuse one another of adopting an arbitrary system of knowledge. But that isn’t what’s happening here. I could agree with an empiricist that he doesn’t need to give me his reasons for his theory of knowledge. We will both grant each other their respective epistemic theories. Otherwise, we will just shout “arbitrary, arbitrary” at one another all day long. The problem you have is that you have a demonstrable inconsistency in your own epistemology. That you want me to ignore the inconsitency based on an appeal to pragmatism without giving any logical reason, just adds another layer of arbitrariness. Pragmatism here makes things worse, not better.

 

[San_Patricio]

My point about causality is a conceptual point, and it has nothing directly to do with skepticism. We do indeed observe all sorts of constant conjunctions between events, and we classify some of them as causes and effects. It is fine to rely upon such notions; I do myself. But it makes no sense to apply them outside of an ordered universe; those who do make their abstractions meaningless by misapplying them. That was the point of my post.

I’m not suggesting applying them outside of an ordered universe. Applying those very principles to our ordered universe indicates more for God’s existence, than against. The very fact that our universe does appear ordered is argument for God.

We can be certain of almost nothing; yes I do believe that that is the case. But that does not make science meaningless, for we must ASSUME that regularities we have seen hold consistently in the past will continue to hold in the future if we are to make plans and act upon them. Accepting the findings of science and experience in general can be justified pragmatically.

I agree tha we can be certain of very little. Belief in God is an act of faith. However, applying the basic priniples of reason and logic (and science) to the world indicate that God does exist. Again, my unanswered question: How do you atheists propose that energy and matter came into being?