Refuting the Matrix Argument (Or: Why Stoned College Kids Make Bad Philosophers)

[Betterave]

AntiTheist,

What Betterave is saying (and correct me if I am wrong here, Betterave) is that your examples about building reliable computers, driving a car safely etc and the like are non sequiturs, especially in the context of a Matrix argument refutation. All that is required for success in these types of activities is consistency, not necessarily truth. People in the Matrix could make exactly the same argument you are making, yet not have knowledge (where knowledge is here loosely defined as justified true belief).

You seem to be saying that it doesn’t really matter if we are in the Matrix, as long as we can consistently do things like build reliable computers and the like. Yet, you keep trying to say that a method which searches for consistency also mostly arrives at knowledge, that is, justified true belief. But clearly, if you were able to use evidential type methods of knowledge discovery in the Matrix, you would not be arriving at justified true belief (which is what knowledge is commonly defined as), rather only justified belief (beliefs which are consistent but not true).

Anyway, as a lurker, that is my 2 cents. Hope it makes sense.

Thanks, Andy. That’s a worthwhile take on Anti’s argument, I think. His problem, which Areopagite is also having to deal with, is indeed this kind of shifting between claims of refuting the Matrix and claims that he may be in the Matrix, epistemologically speaking, but simply doesn’t care.

Anti’s argument makes sense insofar as his ‘refutation’ of the Matrix is in fact just his claim that nobody who is rational ought to care about the truth of the (Matrix-)matter, and so he, being a rational person, does not. This is a strange kind of refutation because it effectively dismisses the Matrix argument while granting that it is sound, and his various modes of expressing this in fact tend to contradict each other.

I tend to agree with Anti on this conceptual point, however (setting aside his confused manner of expressing the point), so my point has been a bit different. I’m happy to valorize “evidence-based inquiry” just as much as Anti, but the problem, as Areo has also repeatedly had to point out, is that this term itself is very much prone to being reduced to a rather stupid slogan that a particular brand of epistemological dogmatist wields in order to avoid examining his own points of view. And - surprise, surprise - my position is that Anti is one of these thoughtless boosters of “evidence-based inquiry” who (ironically and hypocritically) refuses to examine the adequacy of his own conception of “evidence-based inquiry,” and indeed, who resorts to abuse and the crudest kind of straw man, question begging arguments when invited to examine the evident lack of evidence in his own “inquiry into” (i.e., dogmatic position on) “evidence-based inquiry.”

Does that make sense?

 

[Betterave]

I’m not quite sure what your point is.

I do admit there are some Gnostic elements to the Matrix. But I think there are a lot of praiseworthy elements in it (though mainly in the first movie … the sequels kind of fall off the deep end and cease making sense).

But Harry Potter is another issue (and I’m not sure why you’re bringing this up … can you explain?). Personally, I think Harry Potter is the savior of the Christian imagination. Michael O’Brien is a moron. I’ve read articles by him critiquing Harry Potter, and it’s clear he has no idea what he’s talking about. He’s an embarrassment to Catholic apologetics, and a man too heavily influenced by Puritanical Protestantism.

But you might want to start another thread on this. I am a bit confused why you chose to bring this up. Has Harry Potter anything to do with what we’re talking about here? I don’t think so. If so, show me. Please, I would really like to know. Thanks.

So you claim Michael O’Brien is a moron. Now that’s a very strong claim, and I guess you don’t really mean it. But what is the nature of your evidence for this? What does this claim imply about all those who have a great deal of respect for O’Brien (it seems to imply something, I assume)?

[Agreed on the point about this seeming off-topic, but maybe my question can spin it back on topic. ]

 

[ddarko]

Wow, I didn’t know I upset AntiTheist so much that he would go and open a thread to criticize me and not let me know about it

So that everyone on this discussion thread is aware, I am the “stoned college kid” who AntiTheist refers to as bringing up the “matrix argument”.

Now my argument was originally made against AntiTheist to prove the point that he does hold certain metaphysical truths without evidence. Ex: I am not a brain in a vat, Other minds exist etc. It was not to make him believe that he was in the matrix and no one else exists other than him. On the contrary, it was to make him see how absurd the world would look if he held everything to the standard of evidence he wants to hold.

The problem with AntiTheist is that his position is in-fact self contradictory in holding that A1) “all claims require evidence”. The claim A1 it-self has no evidence. There is also the problem that to prove the claim A1 with evidence you first have to presuppose that things are provable by evidence which is A1 it-self. Now this is not a stoned college kid speaking but simple logic.

So in short, the matrix argument is obviously absurd. But its not because we have “evidence” against it. That was simply the point I was making.

Also, I would have thought AntiTheist would have had the courtesy to let me know that he opened a thread to call me a “stoned college kid”. … I do hope he hasn’t finished college yet and has time left to learn more for his own sake

God Bless

 

[Areopagite]

According to what you said before even the demonstration must be accepted of faith. What do you actually call a “demonstration”?

A demonstration is drawing a conclusion from one or more propositions. However, the principles on which the logical rules depend with which a demonstration is done cannot be proven and must be accepted on faith. Also, of course, the premises must be accepted one faith (or at least the ultimate principles upon which the premises are founded). I say these things because these things cannot be proven. So to deny that these are accepted on faith (as I am defining it) would mean to say that first principles (like the principle of non-contradiction) can be proven. But of course, it cannot. Hence it is accepted on faith.

By the way the “cogito” does not rely on any reasoning.

Yes it does. The Cogito is actually an abridged syllogism … an enthymeme, i.e. a syllogism that has one its premises omitted but implied. Here is what Descartes said:

I think.
Therefore, I am.

The premise that is implied is: A thinking thing is an existing thing. So, putting the Cogito statement in the proper syllogistic form would be:

A thinking thing is an existing thing.
I am a thinking thing.
Therefore, I am an existing thing.

It is a valid AAA-1 form. Now, since this is a syllogism, it is therefore, quite obviously, a form of reasoning. Now, all syllogisms (and reasoning) depend on premises. You can try and prove those premises, but you eventually you find yourself with first principles which you cannot prove and thus must accept on faith (because, once again, you cannot prove them).

We directly experience ourselves. You said before that hitting one’s thumb with a hammer and experiencing pain requires “faith”. That is preposterous. When you have a headache, you cannot think: “well maybe I do have a headache, or maybe I feel perfectly fine, I am just imagining this excruciating pain”.

Buddhists and other eastern mystics think that all the time. They think all suffering is an illusion and state of mind that we must escape from by means of attaining nirvana. They have whole monasteries devoted to that very idea. Some of them are even atheists.

But that is exactly what your proposition boils down to. You say that even the “cogito…” must be accepted on faith. And obviously the proposition that “faith is necessary to accept faith” is clearly circular.

Once again, faith is not a demonstration, and only demonstrations can fall victim to circular reasoning.

Now, surely you accept the principle of non-contradiction. However, don’t you need to accept the principle of non-contradiction in order to accept the principle of non-contradiction? Isn’t that circular? Or do you simply accept it without reasoning? If so, then you accept it on faith (i.e. without reasoning, without demonstration).

It does not. Everything hinges on the terms “evidence” and “sufficient” or “insufficient”. But there is no reason to get into that. You definition of faith is irrational and unacceptable.

And what does evidence mean? I’d like to have some atheist answer that for me. None has so far … ever.

And my definition of faith is completely legitimate. If you think that my definition of faith is irrational then you would have to believe that everything should be accepted only if it is demonstrated. Hence, you cannot accept the principle of non-contradiction.

 

[Areopagite]

So you claim Michael O’Brien is a moron. Now that’s a very strong claim, and I guess you don’t really mean it. But what is the nature of your evidence for this?

I would be very willing to talk about this on another thread.

But I’ll just say that O’Brien makes a lot of accusations against Harry Potter that much well-established Catholic literature is also “guilty of.” He seems to have completely overlooked Arthurian literature, for example. I mean, what about Merlin the Wizard and Nyneve the Good Sorceress who helps Arthur? O’Brien also thinks that the symbol of the “Dragon” should always represent evil, and yet the emblem of Arthur himself was a red dragon! Come on. Isn’t O’Brien suppose to be some kind of expert in Catholic literature? If so, it very much incriminates him of either intellectual dishonesty or just gross ignorance (and if it’s the latter, he should know better not to make such sweeping claims about Catholic literary tradition that, incidentally, turn out to be completely false).

What does this claim imply about all those who have a great deal of respect for O’Brien (it seems to imply something, I assume)?

If people respect the good parts of him, that’s admirable, of course.

But the fact that so many people respect him magnifies the damage he causes when he spouts his insane anti-Harry Potter ramblings. I’ve met so many people who seem to be slaves to Michael O’Brien and accept what he says without any critical thinking.

I think he has done tremendous damage in this area. You see, Harry Potter is a Christian work (J.K. Rowling even said so). There is an opportunity to teach people about Christianity through these books. Instead, O’Brien and others are getting it into people’s heads that Harry Potter is opposed to Christianity … and hence Harry Potter fans will naturally turn against Christianity after hearing that. The Wiccans take this opportunity to claim that their religion reflects Harry Potter (even though some Wiccans condemn that idea … as J.K. Rowling has), and so Harry Potter fans are thus pastored into the occult accordingly. This is a common dynamic with puritanism … when you condemn something good, you turn people bad … really bad.

O’Brien should just stick to writing his own fiction. That’s what he seems to be good at. Honestly, though, he should know better.

Well, that’s what I think. I invite your criticisms.

 

[R_Daneel]

A demonstration is drawing a conclusion from one or more propositions.

I don’t understand. A demonstration is to show the veracity of claim, to show that the evaluation of a claim results to being “true”.

You have a claim: “everything is based of faith”, even the most basic principles of natural sciences and the axioms of abstract sciences, and to top it off, even your own existence must be accepted on “faith”. Now, how on Earth would you demonstrate (show the veracity of) this claim? Obviously you cannot. So it is** turtles all the way down **- in other word, you postulate an infinite descent. That is the basis of your epistemology. Of course I do not accept.

Buddhists and other eastern mystics think that all the time. They think all suffering is an illusion and state of mind that we must escape from by means of attaining nirvana. They have whole monasteries devoted to that very idea. Some of them are even atheists.

And who cares? I am just as uninterested in such a worldview as I am not interested in any other harebrained idea such as solipsism. Besides, those people who profess such ideas, immediately refute themselves by acting contrary to those ideas. Actions speak much louder than words. If someone says one thing and does the exact opposite, he merely shows his own inconsistency.

And what does evidence mean? I’d like to have some atheist answer that for me. None has so far … ever.

That is a valid question. Of course there is no “one size fits all” answer to it. The evidence depends on the type of proposition, which is presented.

1. In the anstract sciences it is the logical chain of arguments, which show that the proposition is the corollary of the axioms. (also called a proof)
2. In natural sciences it is the result of the prediciton is affirmed by the experiment.
3. In historical claims it is based upon the contemporary writings, the authors veracity, the number of the authors, and such… It is never as certain and the evidence of the other types of claims.

And my definition of faith is completely legitimate. If you think that my definition of faith is irrational then you would have to believe that everything should be accepted only if it is demonstrated. Hence, you cannot accept the principle of non-contradiction.

Your concept of “demonstration” is meaningless. No, I do not believe that everything must be “demonstrated”. And I do not accept that this process is rationally called “faith”.

 

[AntiTheist]

The only way I found out was waking up. And yet, I had to have faith that I wasn’t dreaming then.

Putting aside our quibble over terminology, look at what you’re saying here: you always treat your experience as “reality” until you can determine otherwise, through evidence (in this example, evidence = waking up).

Are you saying that until one goes to heaven (i.e. “wakes up”), one has no reason to think that this reality is a dream?

If you answer no, you’ve demonstrated that you don’t grasp your own analogy.

This statement, of course, is a universal negative. Can you prove it?

Well, fair enough. Let me refine my claim: demonstrating conclusively that a being or class of beings does not exist (on any “reality,” this one or other supposed realities) is impossible.

That’s true. You can’t prove those things. I bet you have, on the basis of faith, rejected that those things are the case. I share that faith as well.

Faith, by definition, entails belief. It cannot entail non-belief.

I don’t walk around all day with the faith that Zippy the world-illusion-creating leprechaun doesn’t exist. When I hear nonsense about the Scientologists and their stories of Xenus, I don’t go around with faith that Xenus doesn’t exist. When I hear about the Loch Ness monster, I don’t go around with faith that the Loch Ness monster doesn’t exist.

When I hear someone make a claim about a being’s existence or about the nature of something (like, “the Loch Ness monster exists!” or “Zippy the leprechaun exists on another plane of existence” or “god exists” or “reality is all a dream!”), I don’t accept that claim until I see some compelling evidence.

Now, you can quibble with me about what counts as evidence, but you can’t wave your hands and pretend that no one needs evidence to support their beliefs.

To suggest that rejecting absurd claims that have no evidence to support them is somehow a “faith” is to stretch the word “faith” past its breaking point. Rejecting claims that do not have evidence to support them is simply the rational, default position.

And, once again, we come to the question: “What do you mean by evidence?” Never have I gotten an answer to this question from an atheist on this forum. Why does evidence necessarily exclude supernaturally revealed truth as exemplified by the Catholic faith?

Evidence is data that supports a claim.

In the case of claims about a being’s existence, “evidence” would be the tangible manifestation of that being that can be detected by any independent observer, regardless of that observer’s predispositions.

For example, we know that electrons exist because any independent observer can do an experiment that demonstrates that they manifest.

If you say that something “exists” but doesn’t manifest in any detectable way, it is completely indistinguishable from not existing at all.

Just like you can’t prove God doesn’t exist. So here’s my advice: stop trying.

I’ve never once tried to prove that any god – yours or any other – “doesn’t exist.”

My position is that there is insufficient evidence for such a being to justify believing in any such being.

 

[AntiTheist]

Anti’s argument makes sense insofar as his ‘refutation’ of the Matrix is in fact just his claim that nobody who is rational ought to care about the truth of the (Matrix-)matter, and so he, being a rational person, does not. This is a strange kind of refutation because it effectively dismisses the Matrix argument while granting that it is sound, and his various modes of expressing this in fact tend to contradict each other.

There’s some serious confusion here as to exactly what I’m refuting in the OP.

To be clear, I do not grant that the argument that we’re in the Matrix is sound in any way – having zero evidence going for it means that it cannot be sound.

But that’s not the argument I’m refuting. The argument that I’m refuting – if you actually read the OP – is the dumb argument that since we can’t know whether we’re in the Matrix, everything is a matter of faith and therefore everybody has faith and therefore faith is good, so you can’t question religion, you big hypocrite, na na na…!!

Obviously, this stupid argument is utterly confused about definitions. People who treat the world as “real” as a matter of convenience aren’t operating on “faith” – they’re simply interacting with the world that presents itself on that world’s terms without making any sort of metaphysical assertions like, “This world must be real and not the Matrix!”

In other words, the Matrix-mongers assume that everyone is making a covert metaphysical claim about the “reality” of the world – when everyone is really not.

Additionally, that stupid argument can be dealt with by a simple reductio ad absurdum: carried to its logical conclusion, every “faith” is equally valid – since, according to this argument, we don’t have any means of choosing between them (if we did, we would be relying on evidence, not faith) – so this argument asserts that religious faith is on equal footing with raving streetcorner lunacy and that people with actual knowledge are on equal footing with the streetcorner lunatics.

It’s all in the OP. Read more carefully.

I’m happy to valorize “evidence-based inquiry” just as much as Anti, but the problem, as Areo has also repeatedly had to point out, is that this term itself is very much prone to being reduced to a rather stupid slogan that a particular brand of epistemological dogmatist wields in order to avoid examining his own points of view …] [and thus] refuses to examine the adequacy of his own conception of “evidence-based inquiry,”

Oh, brother.

So suggest another method of coming to conclusions other than evidence-based inquiry. Explain how you know that such a method leads you to true conclusions.

From where I sit, it’s not “epistemological dogmatism” to point out that the only method of coming to knowledge that has had consistently reliable results, that has enabled us to actually to command reality and do useful, practical things, the only method of coming to knowledge that has enabled mankind to pull itself out of the dark ages and live in relative comfort and security is evidence based inquiry.

I’m sick of your vague claims that evidence-based inquiry is “inadequate.” Suggest a method of knowing things that isn’t inadequate, already.

I’ll make it really easy for you: answer this post with a single word or phrase: the name or label that you place on your non-inadequate method of coming to knowledge. Bold it so that we can all see it.

Then, in a separate post, explain how the method works and how you know that its conclusions are “adequate” (and what you mean by “adequate”).

We’ll all be waiting.

And by the way, your writing seems to be getting clearer. You should spend more time reading brief synopses of your own arguments. Maybe Andy’s looking for a part-time job as a translator, eh?

 

[AntiTheist]

Wow, I didn’t know I upset AntiTheist so much that he would go and open a thread to criticize me and not let me know about it

Don’t flatter yourself, kid. You’re stoned college kid #6,784 I’ve seen make this dumb argument.

Frankly, I don’t care if you read this thread or actually learn anything. I’m not addressing you: I’m addressing all the nice people out there who are watching this thread.

The problem with AntiTheist is that his position is in-fact self contradictory in holding that A1) “all claims require evidence”. The claim A1 it-self has no evidence.

Yeah, no evidence…except the entire history of humans analyzing claims.

Let me break this down for you, kid.

We’ve observed that when we make claims about the world, the more that those claims are supported by data from the world, the more likely it is that those claims are accurate (“accurate” here being “in accordance with the world”). It’s self-evidently true that claims supported by evidence from the world are more likely to be in accordance with that world – whatever the metaphysical status of that world is.

Or, to put it another way, the real “A1” is “If you want to know that your claims very likely match the world, you need to supply evidence from that world, whether or not that world is the Matrix or not.”

No one – no normal person, anyway – is making any kind of metaphysical claims about “reality” when they do this. [For example, when Fred uses evidence to determine that there isn’t a vast conspiracy of goblins out to get him, he isn’t implicitly making a claim that the world is “really real” and “not the Matrix,” and he isn’t operating out of “faith”] What we’re going for is consistency, making sure that our claims actually match the world we live in, as best as we are able to ascertain at any given moment with the evidence available to us at that moment.

If something is “true,” but it cannot be detected in any way whatsoever by any indepdent observer, then it is indistinguishable from being “not true.”

 

[MindOverMatter2]

My position is that there is insufficient evidence for such a being to justify believing in any such being.

There is Sufficient Evidence. You choose to pretend as if there is no evidence.

 

[Betterave]

There’s some serious confusion here [there sure is] as to exactly what I’m refuting in the OP.

To be clear, I do not grant that the argument that we’re in the Matrix is sound in any way – having zero evidence going for it means that it cannot be sound.

Okay, time for a pop-quiz, Anti:

Question 1: What is a ‘straw man’ argument?

Question 2: Where did I (or anyone) claim that the Matrix argument attempts to prove that we are in the Matrix?

Question 3: Re-read post 199 carefully, then find all of the straw man arguments in your reply (post 206), and underline them and label them.

 

[ddarko]

Don’t flatter yourself, kid. You’re stoned college kid #6,784 I’ve seen make this dumb argument.

Frankly, I don’t care if you read this thread or actually learn anything. I’m not addressing you: I’m addressing all the nice people out there who are watching this thread.

Well first off, I am not biologically a kid.

Secondly, as I said before, the argument was made to show how absurd it would be to hold on to the evidence only position. I think the fact that you didn’t even grasp that makes you more dumber than the argument it-self.

Yeah, no evidence…except the entire history of humans analyzing claims.

Let me break this down for you, kid.

We’ve observed that when we make claims about the world, the more that those claims are supported by data from the world, the more likely it is that those claims are accurate (“accurate” here being “in accordance with the world”). It’s self-evidently true that claims supported by evidence from the world are more likely to be in accordance with that world – whatever the metaphysical status of that world is.

Or, to put it another way, the real “A1” is “If you want to know that your claims very likely match the world, you need to supply evidence from that world, whether or not that world is the Matrix or not.”

No one – no normal person, anyway – is making any kind of metaphysical claims about “reality” when they do this. [For example, when Fred uses evidence to determine that there isn’t a vast conspiracy of goblins out to get him, he isn’t implicitly making a claim that the world is “really real” and “not the Matrix,” and he isn’t operating out of “faith”] What we’re going for is consistency, making sure that our claims actually match the world we live in, as best as we are able to ascertain at any given moment with the evidence available to us at that moment.

If something is “true,” but it cannot be detected in any way whatsoever by any indepdent observer, then it is indistinguishable from being “not true.”

First of all, what are you trying to say here? I showed you that “all claims need evidence” is logically contradictory. Are you trying to tell me that we should believe in logically contradictory statements just because you think so or want to reword it?

Secondly, the “entire history of humans analyzing claims” is regarding scientific truths. All it does is confirm that evidence based inquiry works for that specific set of truths. It does not however CONFIRM or PROVE that “all claims need evidence”. You can’t prove something that is logically flawed by using evidence. Your logic is worse than a high school student.

So with all due respect, get a course on logic. If something is self contradictory, it can’t be PROVEN by evidence. What kind of a laughable claim are you trying to sell here? You know what makes a bad philosopher? Its people like you who don’t understand simple LOGIC!

God Bless

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Found a book review of O’Brien’s book: “Harry Potter and the Paganization of Culture”.

The person who sent it to me didn’t include the author’s name for the review.

But here are a few excerpts:

“The most serious problem is the use of the symbol world of the occult as her primary metaphor, and occultic activities as the dramatic engine of the plots.”

“But the stance of the Church and the Bible has always been that such powers are essentially evil and that there is no justification for their use.”

More later, but the thing is that people actually start to believe that there may actually be something to the occult.

Nothing Christian in the Matrix or in Harry Potter.

 

[Betterave]

Now my argument was originally made against AntiTheist to prove the point that he does hold certain metaphysical truths without evidence. Ex: I am not a brain in a vat, Other minds exist etc. It was not to make him believe that he was in the matrix and no one else exists other than him.

It seems that Anti cannot be reminded of **this **point often enough.

On the contrary, it was to make him see how absurd the world would look if he held everything to the standard of evidence he wants to hold.

This claim is true, but not in the sense in which you intend it.

The problem with AntiTheist is that his position is in-fact self contradictory in holding that A1) “all claims require evidence”. The claim A1 it-self has no evidence. There is also the problem that to prove the claim A1 with evidence you first have to presuppose that things are provable by evidence which is A1 it-self. Now this is not a stoned college kid speaking but simple logic.

Anti’s position should actually be (1) that “all knowledge claims require evidence” and (2) that this claim is self-evident. Therefore it is not correct to say that A1 has no evidence, since ‘self-evidence’ is a kind of evidence. (Unfortunately for Anti and his crude ‘anti-metaphysical’ asseverations, the claim is also metaphysical, and entails the possibility of ‘self-evidencing’ certain claims into TJB-knowledge, in other words, of ‘defining’ states of affairs (i.e., ‘reality,’ or ‘realities’) into existence.)

So in short, the matrix argument is obviously absurd. But its not because we have “evidence” against it. That was simply the point I was making.

…so the Matrix argument is *not *obviously absurd.

Make sense?

 

[Betterave]

But I’ll just say that O’Brien makes a lot of accusations against Harry Potter that much well-established Catholic literature is also “guilty of.” He seems to have completely overlooked Arthurian literature, for example. I mean, what about Merlin the Wizard and Nyneve the Good Sorceress who helps Arthur? O’Brien also thinks that the symbol of the “Dragon” should always represent evil, and yet the emblem of Arthur himself was a red dragon! Come on. Isn’t O’Brien suppose to be some kind of expert in Catholic literature? If so, it very much incriminates him of either intellectual dishonesty or just gross ignorance (and if it’s the latter, he should know better not to make such sweeping claims about Catholic literary tradition that, incidentally, turn out to be completely false).

I have inadequate knowledge for assessing these claims, although prima facie I suspect they are tendentious.

If people respect the good parts of him, that’s admirable, of course.

Of course.

But the fact that so many people respect him magnifies the damage he causes when he spouts his insane anti-Harry Potter ramblings.

Supposing we accept that on the whole he does cause damage with his ‘ramblings.’ And the question remains: what are you saying about people that respect him? Are they really all morons too (mustn’t they be)?

I’ve met so many people who seem to be slaves to Michael O’Brien and accept what he says without any critical thinking.

Abusum non tollit usum, or ab abusu ad usum non valet consequentia.

I think he has done tremendous damage in this area. You see, Harry Potter is a Christian work (J.K. Rowling even said so).

Weak appeal to authority.

There is an opportunity to teach people about Christianity through these books.

But perhaps other possibilities as well.

Instead, O’Brien and others are getting it into people’s heads that Harry Potter is opposed to Christianity … and hence Harry Potter fans will naturally turn against Christianity after hearing that.

Isn’t that their problem as much as O’Brien’s? Certainly the necessarily prior question is whether O’Brien is right.

The Wiccans take this opportunity to claim that their religion reflects Harry Potter (even though some Wiccans condemn that idea … as J.K. Rowling has), and so Harry Potter fans are thus pastored into the occult accordingly.

The truth is dangerous, but again, abusum non tollit usum.

This is a common dynamic with puritanism … when you condemn something good, you turn people bad … really bad.

But one mode of this dynamic is found precisely in the over-reaction against puritanism (including, possibly, yours against O’Brien). But that over-reaction is no more justified than the puritanism that occasioned it.

 

[ddarko]

This claim is true, but not in the sense in which you intend it.

Well it was not with any intention in mind. It was simply to prove the point that its irrational to hold the position that “all claims require evidence”.

Anti’s position should actually be (1) that “all knowledge claims require evidence” and (2) that this claim is self-evident. Therefore it is not correct to say that A1 has no evidence, since ‘self-evidence’ is a kind of evidence. (Unfortunately for Anti and his crude ‘anti-metaphysical’ asseverations, the claim is also metaphysical, and entails the possibility of ‘self-evidencing’ certain claims into TJB-knowledge, in other words, of ‘defining’ states of affairs (i.e., ‘reality,’ or ‘realities’) into existence.)

Aaah yes, but then as you put it, AnitTheist has to take the stance that self evident truths exists though they might not have evidence. This in Anti’s book of knowledge is impossible since he holds on to “all claims require evidence”

Now I don’t think it can be argued that A2) “all knowledge claims require evidence” is a self-evident proposition. There is the problem whether you consider the claim A2 it-self a knowledge claim. If you do, then A2 would once again be self contradictory. And one cannot hold self contradictory positions even if they are self-evident.

…so the Matrix argument is *not *obviously absurd.
Make sense?

Yes I admit that it is not obviously absurd. But the point I was trying to make was that AntiTheist would be happy to hold some metaphysical truths as TRUE without evidence while condemning other claims on the basis that they have no evidence.

God Bless

 

[Betterave]

Well it was not with any intention in mind. It was simply to prove the point that its irrational to hold the position that “all claims require evidence”.

But then it was with an **intention **in mind!

Aaah yes, but then as you put it, AnitTheist has to take the stance that self evident truths exists though they might not have evidence. This in Anti’s book of knowledge is impossible since he holds on to “all claims require evidence”

No, self-evidence is a kind of evidence; thus it is not possible for a self-evident claim to not have evidence.

Now I don’t think it can be argued that A2) “all knowledge claims require evidence” is a self-evident proposition. There is the problem whether you consider the claim A2 it-self a knowledge claim. If you do, then A2 would once again be self contradictory. And one cannot hold self contradictory positions even if they are self-evident.

I think you missed my point. Can you see that now?

Yes I admit that it is not obviously absurd. But the point I was trying to make was that AntiTheist would be happy to hold some metaphysical truths as TRUE without evidence while condemning other claims on the basis that they have no evidence.

He might be. (I think his texts have contradicted themselves in this way.) But he obviously shouldn’t be.

 

[ddarko]

But then it was with an **intention **in mind!

Haha you got me there

No, self-evidence is a kind of evidence; thus it is not possible for a self-evident claim to not have evidence.

Um, yes but my point was that I don’t see how the claim is self-evident. Also, if you do want to take this broad stance on what is self-evident, it does not really take away from what I want to say. You are simply grouping all the knowledge I claim as being without evidence under the label “self evident knowledge”.

I think you missed my point. Can you see that now?

Yes, I did see it before as well but wasn’t sure how you were using the term self-evident. If you are using the label “self evident knowledge” in the sense that some fact being self evident can be used as evidence, then I really have no problem with it. You would just be defining what I call as without evidence under “self evident knowledge” and justifying them as having evidence. The reason why I re-raised opposition in my last post was because under the usual usage of the word, “self evident” is considered as without evidence than it being self-evident being evidence for it-self.

He might be. (I think his texts have contradicted themselves in this way.) But he obviously shouldn’t be.

Yes I totally agree

God Bless

 

[Areopagite]

I don’t understand. A demonstration is to show the veracity of claim, to show that the evaluation of a claim results to being “true”.

Yes. This is true as well (about the nature of a demonstration). However, when you are demonstrating something you are drawing a conclusion from one or more judgments (and a “proposition” is a judgment in sentence form.

So, when I said that “A demonstration is drawing a conclusion from one or more propositions” I believe I was correct. But, perhaps I am missing something. Perhaps I am speaking too narrowly, and you may have a point I am missing. (we went over this a bit before … and I feel I am be at fault for missing something you’ve already said … I apologize, if so … sometimes I’m a bit slow).

You have a claim: “everything is based of faith”, even the most basic principles of natural sciences and the axioms of abstract sciences, and to top it off, even your own existence must be accepted on “faith”.

Yes. Everything ultimately relies on things that cannot be demonstrated (which, I believe you agree with … right?). Hence, using the definition of faith that I have given, everything is based on faith (i.e. everything is ultimately relies on things that cannot be demonstrated).

Now, how on Earth would you demonstrate (show the veracity of) this claim? Obviously you cannot.

That is correct. However, the alternate view, namely that “everything can be demonstrated” is obviously false. No, I’m quite sure you believe that first principles cannot be demonstrated. So, I’m not sure why you’re disagreeing with me.

So it is** turtles all the way down **- in other word, you postulate an infinite descent. That is the basis of your epistemology. Of course I do not accept.

Then your alternative is that “everything can be demonstrated.” However, you reject that as well, which makes me ask why your rejecting my claims that some things (including first principles … upon which all knowledge is based) must be accepted without demonstration (i.e. must be accepted on faith).

And who cares? I am just as uninterested in such a worldview as I am not interested in any other harebrained idea such as solipsism.

I’m not sure what how your lack of interest is compelling argument against harebrained ideas.

You see, I said: “You must have faith that you are experiencing pain when you hit your thumb with a hammer.” And you answered: “No, you don’t need faith because you can’t possibly believe you are not feeling pain.” And I said: “Well, some crazy people (like certain eastern mystics) say that pain (and the universe for that matter) is only a state of mind and that pain is just an illusion.” And then you responded: “I’m not interested in harebrained ideas.”

However, the fact that some ideas do deny what you thought to be undeniable proves that such ideas are not undeniable. Thus my point stands: you need to have faith that you are experiencing pain when you hit your thumb with a hammer.

Besides, those people who profess such ideas, immediately refute themselves by acting contrary to those ideas. Actions speak much louder than words. If someone says one thing and does the exact opposite, he merely shows his own inconsistency.

I agree with that. However, how do you argue that a solipsist or an eastern mystic is acting contrary to their beliefs? A solipsist may argue that he socially interacts with his illusions because it makes him feel better … not because he thinks they are actually people.

Now, personally, I believe many atheists ultimately act contrary to what they believe, but I still take an interest to try and refute them. In fact, I think all modern philosophers ultimately acted against their beliefs (and Bertrand Russell even admitted so about himself). But I simply can’t say, “Oh, he’s acting contrary to his beliefs … so he’s wrong. Q.E.D.” You need to explain why their ideas are harebrained.

If you think a solipsist is harebrained, then why? Do you have reason to think so? Or is his viewpoint unassailable?

 

[Areopagite]

That is a valid question. Of course there is no “one size fits all” answer to it. The evidence depends on the type of proposition, which is presented.

1. In the anstract sciences it is the logical chain of arguments, which show that the proposition is the corollary of the axioms. (also called a proof)
2. In natural sciences it is the result of the prediciton is affirmed by the experiment.
3. In historical claims it is based upon the contemporary writings, the authors veracity, the number of the authors, and such… It is never as certain and the evidence of the other types of claims.

This is a pretty nice list. This is well said.

Now, I am a bit timid to point out in fear of becoming the most annoying person ever, but …

The axioms of an abstract science are not accepted because of any demonstration but nonetheless accepted … hence (according to my definition) abstract sciences are based on faith.

The idea that your senses are reliably perceiving any given experiment is not demonstrable but nonetheless accepted … hence (according to my definition) natural science is based on faith.

The idea that historical contemporary writings from a certain time are actually not fabricated by a vast scholarly conspiracy is (at least generally) accepted without demonstration … hence (according to my definition) historical claims are based on faith.

Thus all demonstration, since it relies on things that are indemonstrable, is based on faith.

Your concept of “demonstration” is meaningless.

I’m not quite sure why you think this.

No, I do not believe that everything must be “demonstrated”.

This is good. So, therefore, you don’t think my definition of faith (that which is accepted without demonstration) is irrational, insofar as you DO think that some things are accepted without demonstration. Right?

However, do you simply reject my definition of faith because … well, why?

And I do not accept that this process is rationally called “faith”.

But you do think that the principles of demonstration are not demonstrable, right? So, if demonstration relies on things that are not demonstrable, then isn’t demonstration based on faith (i.e. that which cannot be demonstrated)?

Now, are you simply arguing that I my definition of faith diverges from its ultimate common usage rather than arguing that my proposed definition of faith is irrational?