Does Empiricism Make a Logically Valid Standard of Proof? What Do You Think?

[warpspeedpetey]

In almost every conversation has with atheists, you will be asked to meet their empirical standard of proof. This standard may be formulated as this

**
A statement can only be considered true if it can be proven with empirically verifiable evidence.
** This is clearly self refuting and illogical, allow me to demonstrate.

Premise 1: A statement can only be considered true if it can be proven with empirically verifiable evidence.

Premise 2: There is no empirically verifiable evidence to prove the statement “A statement can only be considered true if it can be proven with empirically verifiable evidence.” is true

Conclusion: Therefore the statement* “A statement is only true if it can be proven with empirically verifiable evidence”* is false.

It looks like the standard that the atheists have been using to attack Christian claims is logically invalid.

]Doyal & Harris, “Empiricism in its crudest form is probably the epistemology which is most generally accepted by people without philosophical training”
1986 (p2).

How does this affect the Catholic apologist?

Empiricism is little more than a lie, it is essentially meaningless. Therefore any atheist position based on it is necessarily invalid as well. So when an atheist attempts to use Empiricism as the standard of proof, he is really asking you to meet a logically invalid standard. Pointing this out generally leaves them at a loss for words. If they cannot defend this standard, I see no reason that we should try to meet it. Instead we should attack that standard at every turn. It pains me to see Christian after Christian respond to atheist arguments by trying to meet a standard that is logically invalid. How many souls have been lost to atheist arguments based on what is ultimately a lie?

Does anyone have any other ideas on this?

Here are some other resources to look at.

inform.nu/Articles/Vol8/v8p189-210Mende.pdf

 

[po18guy]

In almost every conversation has with atheists, you will be asked to meet their empirical standard of proof. This standard may be formulated as this…How does this affect the Catholic apologist?

It causes me to pray more.

Empiricism is little more than a lie, it is essentially meaningless. Therefore any atheist position based on it is necessarily invalid as well. So when an atheist attempts to use Empiricism as the standard of proof, he is really asking you to meet a logically invalid standard. Pointing this out generally leaves them at a loss for words. If they cannot defend this standard, I see no reason that we should try to meet it. Instead we should attack that standard at every turn. It pains me to see Christian after Christian respond to atheist arguments by trying to meet a standard that is logically invalid. How many souls have been lost to atheist arguments based on what is ultimately a lie? Does anyone have any other ideas on this?

I note that many self-identified atheists need to control the dialog, and usually pull this card out of their slim deck. Empiricism is essentially individual truth - relativism, which means that one does not possess the truth, but has found a comfortable lie. Synonym: denial.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Empiricism, or more specifically, the “verification principle” advanced by the logical positivists is flawed from the get-go because we can’t “verify” the verification principle, and therefore by their own logic, their principle is flawed. And so if it is flawed, why should anyone pay attention to it?

Logical positivism made several retreats when they found out that several things that we know are factually true can’t be “empirically verified”. For instance, we know that Socrates existed from the very few references made to him by Plato. However, we can’t “empirically verify” that Socrates existed. We just put our faith in the few references made about him that he did exist. So what did the logical positivists do to overcome circumstances such as these, namely, where we know something is factually true but have little proof to prove it? They created the “weak verification principle”. But the “weak verification principle” must ultimately lead to God. On a continuum from what can be “strongly empirically verified” (e.g. the speed of car) to weakly empirically verified (e.g. Socrates’ existence), God must be on that part of the spectrum where it “cannot be empirically verified”. This would make sense. We can’t even strongly empirically verify Socrates existence, yet he lived on this mortal earth, so what makes anyone think God can be “strongly empirically verified”, who has never been seen by any living man in history (John 1:18, Exodus 33:20, 1 Corinthians 13:12)?

Personally, I don’t buy into the verification principle and from what I’ve read of logical positivism. The Bible instructs us to not put the Lord our God to the test (Deuteronomy 6:16). I think the logical positivists should take heed of that verse.

Thank you,
**Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk
**

 

[Warrior1979]

One of the ironic things about empiricism is that is has proven that certain things cannot be known. A simple example is the Uncertainty Principle in physics. It’s proven, accepted, and used in practice; e.g., quantum key encryption.

 

[jwright82]

We must always make a distinction between empirical beliefs and Empiricism. Empiricism is the beleief that all our beliefs come from our senses. This theory is false and leads the Logical Positivist position, which is self-refuting. But we derive many beliefs from our sense and the justification of these beliefs take on a different form that other more strictly logical beliefs. That is to to say that our standered of proof relaxes a bit for more empirical beliefs. This more ordinary account of of belief formation and justification.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

… has found a comfortable lie. Synonym: denial.

That’s about the size of it. I don’t think it really matters to some people if they are using logically invalid arguments, they are just interested in getting other people to accept their view point and that’s about it. Atheism always seems like a position one holds by desire, not by any rational reason.

Personally, I think this a great tool to use for people who claim they only believe what they can prove, because they almost all mean “empirical proof”. Since we can easily demonstrate that it is a logically invalid standard of proof, it is a cogent, true, and utterly disarming counter argument, after all. Where can one go intellectually when the foundation of ones beliefs is undeniably ripped out from under them?

 

[Pieman333272]

Empiricism is just sad. It only goes to show how closed the minds of some people are. Beyond that, it is weak and useless.

 

[honestquestions]

There is a flying leprechaun that lives in my house, and unless you come here once every Tuesday to say hi to him, he will cause torment in your life.

Premise 1: A statement can only be considered true if it can be proven with empirically verifiable evidence.

Premise 2: There is no empirically verifiable evidence to prove the statement “A statement can only be considered true if it can be proven with empirically verifiable evidence.” is true

Conclusion: Therefore the statement “A statement is only true if it can be proven with empirically verifiable evidence” is false.

It looks like the standard that the atheists have been using to attack Christian claims is logically invalid. Therefore, it is reasonable to accept the claim.

 

[Pieman333272]

There is a flying leprechaun that lives in my house, and unless you come here once every Tuesday to say hi to him, he will cause torment in your life.

Premise 1: A statement can only be considered true if it can be proven with empirically verifiable evidence.

Premise 2: There is no empirically verifiable evidence to prove the statement “A statement can only be considered true if it can be proven with empirically verifiable evidence.” is true

Conclusion: Therefore the statement “A statement is only true if it can be proven with empirically verifiable evidence” is false.

It looks like the standard that the atheists have been using to attack Christian claims is logically invalid. Therefore, it is reasonable to accept the claim.

Strawman. He didn’t state the bolded part. The point is that something can be true if it can’t be tested empirically, not it always is true if it can’t be tested empirically.

 

[honestquestions]

Strawman. He didn’t state the bolded part. The point is that something can be true if it can’t be tested empirically, not it always is true if it can’t be tested empirically.

Oh I see, that makes more sense - I didn’t fully understand the argument. But unfortunately, now that it’s cleared up and I understand it better, the argument is a pretty poor one.

Absolutely, there may be an infinite number of things that can be true if it can’t be tested empirically at this time.But does that mean we should believe these multitude of things that we can imagine just because it could be true? It could be true that there is a flying leprechaun outside of our galaxy that is controlling Earth as an experiment, but until the belief is justified by objectionable evidence, should we believe such claims?

 

[Pieman333272]

Absolutely, there may be an infinite number of things that can be true if it can’t be tested empirically at this time.But does that mean we should believe these multitude of things that we can imagine just because it could be true? It could be true that there is a flying leprechaun outside of our galaxy that is controlling Earth as an experiment, but until the belief is justified by objectionable evidence, should we believe such claims?

Now THAT’S an honest question! Lol, seriously, I think that Christianity can actually be tested. I think the problem is that it can’t be tested empirically. It can be tested philosophically (i.e. evaluating the God concept and certain doctrines), it can be tested historically (proving the resurrection if you go that route), but it can’t get the same hard, scientific evidence things like evolution and the big bang have.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…It looks like the standard that the atheists have been using to attack Christian claims is logically invalid.

The validity of the empirical statement doesn’t depend on the claim you would like to refute, it necessarily follows from the premises upon which the deduction is based.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Empiricism, or more specifically, the “verification principle” advanced by the logical positivists is flawed from the get-go because we can’t “verify” the verification principle, and therefore by their own logic, their principle is flawed. And so if it is flawed, why should anyone pay attention to it?

Logical positivism made several retreats when they found out that several things that we know are factually true can’t be “empirically verified”. For instance, we know that Socrates existed from the very few references made to him by Plato. However, we can’t “empirically verify” that Socrates existed. We just put our faith in the few references made about him that he did exist. So what did the logical positivists do to overcome circumstances such as these, namely, where we know something is factually true but have little proof to prove it? They created the “weak verification principle”. But the “weak verification principle” must ultimately lead to God. On a continuum from what can be “strongly empirically verified” (e.g. the speed of car) to weakly empirically verified (e.g. Socrates’ existence), God must be on that part of the spectrum where it “cannot be empirically verified”. This would make sense. We can’t even strongly empirically verify Socrates existence, yet he lived on this mortal earth, so what makes anyone think God can be “strongly empirically verified”, who has never been seen by any living man in history (John 1:18, Exodus 33:20, 1 Corinthians 13:12)?

Personally, I don’t buy into the verification principle and from what I’ve read of logical positivism. The Bible instructs us to not put the Lord our God to the test (Deuteronomy 6:16). I think the logical positivists should take heed of that verse.

Thank you,
**Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk
**

Excellent point. I never heard it put in those terms before.

 

[honestquestions]

I think that Christianity can actually be tested. I think the problem is that it can’t be tested empirically. It can be tested philosophically (i.e. evaluating the God concept and certain doctrines), it can be tested historically (proving the resurrection if you go that route), but it can’t get the same hard, scientific evidence things like evolution and the big bang have.

What are other aspects of our lives that don’t deal with religion where it is seen as acceptable to accept claims based on tests that are philosophical or historical? I’m not sure if that’s official terminology or anything but I’m going with what you wrote. Or do we (as we should?) only accept things through hard evidence? (I’m not being facetious, I’m really trying to figure this out as well, though I immediately suspect it’s the latter).

If it is only through hard evidence, why should there be an exception here? And if there is a God, why would he give us brains to critically analyze this? Maybe make some hard evidence that simply cannot be overlooked - now that would be a real choice for those who simply want to deny him!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

One of the ironic things about empiricism is that is has proven that certain things cannot be known. A simple example is the Uncertainty Principle in physics. It’s proven, accepted, and used in practice; e.g., quantum key encryption.

Check the .pdf I linked to, there are a lot more problems with empiricism that aren’t germane to the discussions that we tend to have on these boards. Empiricism has been under serious assault for a long time now.

 

[honestquestions]

Empiricism, or more specifically, the “verification principle” advanced by the logical positivists is flawed from the get-go because we can’t “verify” the verification principle, and therefore by their own logic, their principle is flawed. And so if it is flawed, why should anyone pay attention to it?

So what is the methodology that we should use to evaluate claims?

However, we can’t “empirically verify” that Socrates existed. We just put our faith in the few references made about him that he did exist. … God must be on that part of the spectrum where it “cannot be empirically verified”. This would make sense. We can’t even strongly empirically verify Socrates existence, yet he lived on this mortal earth, so what makes anyone think God can be “strongly empirically verified”, who has never been seen by any living man in history (John 1:18, Exodus 33:20, 1 Corinthians 13:12)?

We don’t put complete faith without evidence that Socrates existed. There is at least some evidence, and the claims are not extraordinary. On the other hand the miraculous claims violate some laws of physics, and even to this day there are supposed miracles happening by proposed healers on Earth, one of which has over one million followers, but yet it can’t even get airtime on T.V. This has been happening all throughout history. Nevertheless, I don’t doubt how much the followers believe in his extraordinary claims.

The Bible instructs us to not put the Lord our God to the test (Deuteronomy 6:16). I think the logical positivists should take heed of that verse.

What if another religion (some do) made that statement? I think a real choice of denying/accepting God would be some great evidence that is undeniable, and those who did really would be denying based on their choice.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

We must always make a distinction between empirical beliefs and Empiricism. Empiricism is the beleief that all our beliefs come from our senses. This theory is false and leads the Logical Positivist position, which is self-refuting. But we derive many beliefs from our sense and the justification of these beliefs take on a different form that other more strictly logical beliefs. That is to to say that our standered of proof relaxes a bit for more empirical beliefs. This more ordinary account of of belief formation and justification.

Of course there is always the Rationalist/Empiricist dichotomy. I don’t mean to imply that there aren’t issues in that debate (foundations in meta-mathematics anyone?). But those issues are out of the scope of my argument here.

 

[honestquestions]

One of the ironic things about empiricism is that is has proven that certain things cannot be known. A simple example is the Uncertainty Principle in physics. It’s proven, accepted, and used in practice; e.g., quantum key encryption.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought we accept the uncertainty principle because it states that we cannot assign exactly 100% to any belief - we will never be 100% sure of any belief. Of course, in terms of useful dialogue that actually give understanding to us, we say ‘proven’ for something that is an acceptable position based on reason. Am I following your point correctly?

 

[honestquestions]

The validity of the empirical statement doesn’t depend on the claim you would like to refute, it necessarily follows from the premises upon which the deduction is based.

I’m not following…

 

[mcteague]

‘valid’ yes
‘only’ no
And valid a valid standard for who?