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

[Areopagite]

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).

No. I never said that. I never said that “one always treats one’s experience as reality.” There are plenty of people (such as solipsists) who claim that their life experiences are illusory.

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.

Depends what you mean by “no reason.” One can certainly argue that their life experiences are part of a dream and such arguments may not have any rational refutation.

How don’t I understand my analogy? Maybe I don’t. Perhaps you have refuted me on this point. But I don’t understand what you’re saying. Could you draw this out a bit more for me?

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.

Now we get into a debate what a “being” is and what “reality” is. This of course is the realm of metaphysics … one which, I’ve gathered, you have turned your back on.

Well, I would say, for example, “Cars that have been made by me” is a class of beings. I can prove (at least to myself) that “No cars that have been made by me exist.” This statement is a universal negative and it can be proven. Hence, even with your clarification, it is clear that some universal negatives can be proven.

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

A belief can be a non-belief depending on how you grammatically compose the expression of the belief.

You can believe in God. Or you can disbelieve that God does not exist. You can believe that there is no God. Or you can disbelieve that there is a God. Faith is just “the acceptance of something without demonstration.” However, that “something” that is accepted may proposition that denies the existence of something. So faith can involves belief or non-belief. It doesn’t matter.

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.

Of course you have faith that they do not exist. You cannot disprove these things, but you nonetheless are bold enough to conclude “They do not exist” even though you cannot demonstrate that. The only way to not have any faith is to say, “Well … maybe, maybe not … I don’t know.” In other words, agnosticism. I respect atheists more than agnostics because atheists have a kind of faith, whether they admit it or not.

 

[Areopagite]

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.

You may not accept that claim … but do you reject that claim? If you reject that claim, then you are taking the leap of faith that those things don’t exist.

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.

Sorry, but it depends what you mean by evidence. How can I answer your question when we haven’t defined what evidence is? I still have no idea what you mean by evidence, so how on earth can I answer your question?

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.

Once again … what do you mean by evidence? I may or may not agree with you depending on what you mean.

Evidence is data that supports a claim.

Okay, finally a definition of evidence. But what do you mean by “data”? This is not a criticism of your definition … but just a request to flush this out a bit more. Why doesn’t the theological virtue of faith (i.e. a supernatural knowledge imputed into the human mind by God) that Catholics claim to have not constitute data? I think it certainly constitutes data. You presumably would disagree. Why?

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.

If I see Bigfoot (and dissect him and confirm it’s some kind of half-human and half-ape thing), and yet cannot present this evidence to anyone later on (because, for example, it’s destroyed in a fire) … must I then reject Bigfoot’s existence because the evidence cannot “be detected by any independent observer.” No. Obviously not. I personally experienced Bigfoot’s existence and thus I accept Bigfoot’s existence. I don’t care if anyone else didn’t experience him. So, I think your definition of evidence is flawed.

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.

And yet you are an atheist. And presumably, you would like for other people to be atheists too. Why not take the route completely devoid of faith and just be agnostic?

 

[Areopagite]

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.”

Let me ask you this: should the symbol world the occult be used as any kind of metaphor ever?

“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.”

So, are we to condemn the legends of King Arthur? They feature Wizards and Sorceresses in a positive light. What about Gandalf? He’s a Wizard too, last I checked.

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

Yes, people may actually start to believe that. In my works with the Legion of Mary (a Catholic lay apostate that evangelizes door-to-door), we encountered someone who got into the occult because of Lord of the Rings. Should we condemn Lord of the Rings?

Nothing Christian in the Matrix or in Harry Potter.

Oh, please. Even if the Matrix and Harry Potter are the spawn of the devil, there is undeniably Christian elements in both of them.

You obviously haven’t read the Harry Potter books. My suggestion is … read them before you pass judgment . Most of the time, people are cured that way.

And the question remains: what are you saying about people that respect him? Are they really all morons too (mustn’t they be)?

Well, if people respect him for his admirable parts, then they are not morons.

However, if people respect him for his moronic parts, then … well, yeah, I guess you could say they’re morons. I think that follows. Right?

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

I had to look up these phrases.

And I still don’t know what you’re saying.

Weak appeal to authority.

I don’t know about that. If J.K. Rowling says that she intended Harry Potter to be a Christian work (and she has said just that) I think that’s important. The intent of the author is important to keep in mind when judging a work. That’s my opinion, at least.

Now, of course, you could go the whole conspiracy route and say Rowling is a witch and that she’s lying about being a Christian and all that … but that’s another debate. Of all the anti-Harry Potter fanatics who have said that, they have not really been able to give any proof of any kind whatsoever.

Certainly the necessarily prior question is whether O’Brien is right.

Well, yes, I think that’s probably correct. And if he is right, then we would have to condemn Arthurian literature as well.

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.

Indeed. I am willing to explain myself in great detail if you want. (but on another thread maybe?)

But just out of curiosity … have you read Harry Potter? Have you read O’Brien’s critiques of Harry Potter? Anything like that? I would at least require (or … ask) you to read Harry Potter before I present my arguments to you. But … it’s your choice. I can present my arguments anyway. It’s all good.

 

[R_Daneel]

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.

Actually, this is part of hypothesis forming process. The demostration phase is the verification process. We could use all sorts of synonyms, like: “prove”, “substantiate”, “verify”, “support” etc. When we make a hypothesis that a dropped object will fall down, the verification (demonstration) is to actually perform an experiment. If the object falls down, the experiment “supports” the hypothesis (it is better to say that the experiment did not refute the hypothesis). If the object would fall “up”, the experiment would “disprove” the hypothesis.

According to your proposition, all the steps in the process require “faith”. We must accept on faith that we have a heavy object in our hand. We must have faith that we actually released that object. We must have faith that the object reached the ground. We must have faith that our senses reported that the object did reach the ground. And so on… All the steps (in and by themselves) must be accepted on faith, since none of them can be demonstrated, verifed, substantiated, proven… so what kind of epistemology is that? The trouble is that your basic epistemological foundation: “everything must be accepted on faith” cannot be “verified”, “demonstrated”, etc… so it also must be accepted on faith. There is no foundation of this epistemology - as I said: “it is turtles all the way down”, or the dog chasing its tail forever.

You even said that our own existence must be accepted on “faith”. We cannot “prove”, “demonstrate”, “verify”, “substantiate” to ourselves that we exist. But this is clearly nonsense. The ultimate starting point is the “cogito” propostion.

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).

I disagree with your usage of “faith” and disagree with your usage of “demonstration”. Words are supposed to have meanings, to convey information. I gave my definition of faith and demonstration, which do not agree with your proposed definitions.

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

Because his belief system is internally self-contradictory or inconsistent. I don’t have to refute their possible arguments - they do it for me as soon as they open their mouths to speak to the figment of their imagination or to consume some illusionary food, which is not “really” there. No, I don’t think that should be concerned about the clinically insane, and their ideas. There is a basic level of rationality which we must maintain.

 

[Betterave]

According to your proposition, all the steps in the process require “faith”. We must accept on faith that we have a heavy object in our hand. We must have faith that we actually released that object. We must have faith that the object reached the ground. We must have faith that our senses reported that the object did reach the ground. And so on… All the steps (in and by themselves) must be accepted on faith, since none of them can be demonstrated, verifed, substantiated, proven… so what kind of epistemology is that? The trouble is that your basic epistemological foundation: “everything must be accepted on faith” cannot be “verified”, “demonstrated”, etc… so it also must be accepted on faith. There is no foundation of this epistemology - as I said: “it is turtles all the way down”, or the dog chasing its tail forever.

I think you are misunderstanding what Areo is saying (he can correct me, of course, if you’re not). Areo wrote:

Yes. Everything **ultimately emphasis added] **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).

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).

Thus he is NOT saying that everything is directly based on faith, i.e., that “all the steps (in and by themselves) must be accepted on faith, since none of them can be demonstrated, verifed, substantiated, proven” - this statement seems very clearly to be a straw man.

“Not everything can be demonstrated” ~= “Nothing can be demonstrated”

 

[Betterave]

Well, if people respect him for his admirable parts, then they are not morons.

However, if people respect him for his moronic parts, then … well, yeah, I guess you could say they’re morons. I think that follows. Right?

It seems that way. So then we might want to look at a list of people who respect the “moronic parts” of O’Brien’s views and ask ourselves whether it is antecedently likely that they should be regarded as morons…

I think this is an interesting comment from an interesting O’Brien article:

Prior to his election to the Chair of Peter, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, had outlined his concerns about the Potter books to a German sociologist, Gabriele Kuby, who had written a book on the problems in the series and its negative effects on children. Her book, Harry Potter—gut oder böse? (Harry Potter—good or evil?) strongly critiques the series. In his March 7, 2003, letter to her, written a month after the press had falsely proclaimed that the Church approved of Harry Potter, the cardinal, who was Prefect for the Doctrine of the Faith at the time, encouraged her in her critique.

…]

Elsewhere [sociologist Gabriele Kuby] has noted the widespread phenomenon of anger against Potter critics, some of it coming from orthodox Catholics who vehemently defend the series. Her arguments have been misrepresented, her integrity publicly ridiculed, and not infrequently she has suffered other kinds of ad hominem attacks against her person. This is a fairly common experience among those who resist the Potter revolution. What is surprising is that some of the worst attacks have come from serious-minded Christian commentators who are generally considered to be people of reason.

studiobrien.com/writings_on_fantasy/pope-benedict-and-harry-potter.html

I had to look up these phrases.

And I still don’t know what you’re saying.

I think it’s the basic anti-Puritan principle used to refute simplistic claims like the following: Alcohol can be abused, so alcohol is simply bad (has no legitimate use). Harry Potter can be abused, so etc… Michael O’Brien can be abused, so etc…

I don’t know about that. If J.K. Rowling says that she intended Harry Potter to be a Christian work (and she has said just that) I think that’s important. The intent of the author is important to keep in mind when judging a work. That’s my opinion, at least.

Right, but Obama says he is a Christian and he intends his abortion policy to be a Christian work. AntiTheist says he is into “evidence-based inquiry” and he intends his views to be based on evidence. We obviously can’t simply accept claims like these. We shouldn’t ignore them, but we have to look at the actual evidence in order to assess their reliability.

Now, of course, you could go the whole conspiracy route and say Rowling is a witch and that she’s lying about being a Christian and all that … but that’s another debate. Of all the anti-Harry Potter fanatics who have said that, they have not really been able to give any proof of any kind whatsoever.

The conspiracy route is hardly necessary (and is explicitly ruled out by O’Brien): many professed Christians are simply clueless about Christianity - that’s just an obvious fact. I think it’s fair to say that O’Brien and many others who have criticized HP are not so clueless.

Well, yes, I think that’s probably correct. And if he is right, then we would have to condemn Arthurian literature as well.

Are you sure about this? I’m quite certain that O’Brien is not so naive as you depict him to be. I believe he has made arguments to explicitly deny similar alleged consequences of his view (regarding Tolkien and C.S. Lewis). You would need to address those arguments if you didn’t want to beg the question.

Indeed. I am willing to explain myself in great detail if you want. (but on another thread maybe?)

Maybe!

But just out of curiosity … have you read Harry Potter? Have you read O’Brien’s critiques of Harry Potter? Anything like that? I would at least require (or … ask) you to read Harry Potter before I present my arguments to you. But … it’s your choice. I can present my arguments anyway. It’s all good.

No Harry Potter, some of O’Brien’s critiques. Nonetheless, there are clear rules of evidence-based inquiry that render a judgment on this possible without having read Harry Potter; correct?

per se.]

 

[Betterave]

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”.

Not necessarily…

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.

The problem with your view here is that certain views are simply “without evidence” and it would be nonsense to label them as “self-evident”. The failure to recognize this would be a worse mistake than any that AntiTheist has made.

 

[R_Daneel]

I think you are misunderstanding what Areo is saying (he can correct me, of course, if you’re not). Areo wrote:

Yes. Everything ultimately emphasis added] 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).

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).

Thus he is NOT saying that everything is directly based on faith, i.e., that “all the steps (in and by themselves) must be accepted on faith, since none of them can be demonstrated, verifed, substantiated, proven” - this statement seems very clearly to be a straw man.

“Not everything can be demonstrated” ~= “Nothing can be demonstrated”

I do not quarrel with the idea that the most fundamental (ultimate) building blocks of knowledge (basic principles and axioms) cannot be “proven” (demonstrated). I quarrel with the idea that this is properly called “faith”. Nevertheless, he has never shown any piece of the epistemological process which is not accepted on “faith” (as he defines faith) - so my remark is not a straw-man. He did not say explicitly that “everything is based on faith”, he said it implictly. He said that even one’s own existence must be accepted on faith - making his usage of the word absurd. Also his usage of “demonstration” is improper.

I have seen the same type of argument many times. It seems that the proponents of this kind of argument would like to draw a parallel between the “faith that the Sun will rise tomorrow” and the “faith that invisible demons are responsible for tempting someone to sin”. This attempt to wash away the enormous differences between the two types of propositions is what I am exposing. Again, it “seems” that the proponents are aware of these differences, but try to “drag down” the rational assumptions onto the level of “blind, unsupported, un-demonstrated, unproven and unprovable faith”. Maybe “deep down” they are aware of the irrationality of their faith (but never admit it even to themselves), and since they cannot raise their belief to the level of rationality, they try to drag down everything else into the same sordid mess. Of course this is just my personal belief, which may be incorrect. Though I don’t think so. The fact that even the Cathecism asserts that God’s existence can be substantiated by fully rational (read: non-faith based) means is a very strong indication that “reason” is considered to be a higher level of obtaining knowledge than “faith”.

 

[fhansen]

The answer, agfain, is obvious to anyone who is halfway paying attention. Faith – by definition – is accepting claims without sufficient evidence. No one is arguing that “the world is really real and not the Matrix.” In the context of evaluating claims about the consistent world revealed by our senses, it makes no difference whether that world is the Matrix or not. It’s not a matter of “faith” at all, not in the sense that religious believers use the word “faith.”

First of all I could never make sense of the Matrix enough to even bother following it-it just seemed altogether vacuous. But your comments about young people’s reaction to it reminded me of college back in the day when the popular terminology ran something like, “everything’s relative” and “you need to create your own reality”.

Ironically-or not-faith is what helped pull me out of such nonsense and grounded me more firmly in the real world. Life and the decisions we make became much more relevant and critical-life’s not only important, it’s sacred, and what we do has consequences and purpose. It’s been said that science ended up blossoming most prolifically in the west because a foundation was already built within Catholic education-beginning before the Dark Ages- as purpose and order were recognized in the universe. Christian faith, if anything, makes one more grounded.

You may believe faith is only in the mind because it can’t be proven but I’d maintain that faith, even in bare, unconscious, rudimentary form, is* positivism*, general recognition of goodness in the world and nature and hope/belief that all we do has a purpose and a reason. It’s the faith that it’s worth it to get up in the morning and keep putting one step in front of the other. And there is no reason for this kind of faith either-we certainly can’t prove it’s real or why one should have it. Christianity just gives it a name and definition.

The Matrix ideal ends up being the opposite—lack of faith or nihilism.

Faith is the recognition of, a connection to, and a confirmation of the order, purpose, and goodness in the universe. It can be had-but not proven-because it’s a gift, like our lives themselves, along with free will, love, pleasure, beauty, etc. But it’s a gift we can reject if we prefer our pursuit of those other gifts: life, freedom, love, pleasure, beauty-happiness-without any attachments or connection to their source. But then, of course, we end up with less faith and it becomes less certain as to whether or not the Matrix ideal or other such nonsense should be serious contenders as world views.

And I can’t imagine a half-way serious Christian even bothering to contemplate such a view. Atheists, sure; Christians, maybe, if they were really, really stoned. But fortunately most societies no longer allow that practice. Sorry.

 

[Betterave]

…]

The Matrix ideal ends up being the opposite—lack of faith or nihilism.

Faith is the recognition of, a connection to, and a confirmation of the order, purpose, and goodness in the universe. It can be had-but not proven-because it’s a gift, like our lives themselves, along with free will, love, pleasure, beauty, etc. But it’s a gift we can reject if we prefer our pursuit of those other gifts: life, freedom, love, pleasure, beauty-happiness-without any attachments or connection to their source. But then, of course, we end up with less faith and it becomes less certain as to whether or not the Matrix ideal or other such nonsense should be serious contenders as world views.

And I can’t imagine a half-way serious Christian even bothering to contemplate such a view. Atheists, sure; Christians, maybe, if they were really, really stoned. But fortunately most societies no longer allow that practice. Sorry.

That’s all very nice, but what do you mean by “the Matrix ideal,” and what justifies your meaning?

Also, many (most?) people are quite content to take one on the chin from reality, and this is to their credit. The kind of rank ‘positivism’ (or ‘positivity’) which is happy to proclaim that it has “no reason” supporting it seems entirely gratuitous and has no appeal for them.

 

[fhansen]

That’s all very nice, but what do you mean by “the Matrix ideal,” and what justifies your meaning?

Also, many (most?) people are quite content to take one on the chin from reality, and this is to their credit. The kind of rank ‘positivism’ (or ‘positivity’) which is happy to proclaim that it has “no reason” supporting it seems entirely gratuitous and has no appeal for them.

I was making a general response to the OP. When I have time I’ll read some of the recent posts and get filled in on the discussion.

 

[AntiTheist]

I think the fact that you didn’t even grasp that makes you more dumber than the argument it-self.

It makes me “more dumber,” does it?

This is what we’re dealing with, folks.

 

[AntiTheist]

First of all I could never make sense of the Matrix enough to even bother following it-it just seemed altogether vacuous. But your comments about young people’s reaction to it reminded me of college back in the day when the popular terminology ran something like, “everything’s relative” and “you need to create your own reality”.

Yeah, clowns come in all kind of varieties, but usually they are chanting some kind of hippy-dippy mantra like, “it’s all, like, relative, man” and “it’s totally true for me but not for you – don’t knock it till you try it.”

Ironically-or not-faith is what helped pull me out of such nonsense and grounded me more firmly in the real world. Life and the decisions we make became much more relevant and critical-life’s not only important, it’s sacred, and what we do has consequences and purpose.

Well, you’re talking about something different here: you’re talking about drawing “meaning” and “purpose” from a belief, which is all well and good.

And I agree that it’s nice to have a purpose in your life, even if it’s as simple as, “I’m going to make sure my kids have the best life possible.”

See, I don’t think there needs to be some all-encompassing supernatural cosmic plan to make it meaningful for me to do things. If you feel differently, then whatever. It’s not really relevant to this thread.

It’s the faith that it’s worth it to get up in the morning and keep putting one step in front of the other. And there is no reason for this kind of faith either-we certainly can’t prove it’s real or why one should have it. Christianity just gives it a name and definition.

Well, I can’t speak for you, but I do have a lot of reasons for wanting to get up in the morning and to do things: I have friends and family and a job and hobbies and interests and all sorts of things that make life so enjoyable.

I’m willing to bet that if you examine your own life, you can generate quite a list of things that give your life meaning quite apart from any supernatural beliefs.

 

[AntiTheist]

I’m not surprised at all that Betterave has declined my request. Reposted for convenience:

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.

 

[ddarko]

It makes me “more dumber,” does it?

This is what we’re dealing with, folks.

Aaah I see that you still love to make useless posts . You don’t need to repeat what I wrote. It should be quiet obvious to you that people on this forum can READ what I wrote themselves

Now how about, you answer the challenge that I made in the rest of that post. Do you or do you not want to PROVE a self contradictory position by evidence?

Or do you want to take Betterave’s position that some truths are “self evident”?

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

I’m not surprised at all that Betterave has declined my request. Reposted for convenience:

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.

How about you stop accusing other people of denying requests and answer my QUESTION to YOU. Right now as it stands, you are not looking too intellectual considering you want to prove that “all claims require evidence”. So whats your defence? Do you still hold on to “all claims require evidence” or do you want to take the view that Betterave takes?

God Bless

 

[Betterave]

I’m not surprised at all that Betterave has declined my request. Reposted for convenience:

You’re not surprised? Why is that?

I haven’t declined your request at all (you again have NO evidence for this claim ); I’m waiting to see if you can answer my questions which began addressing the points from the beginning of the post you’ve repeated in part here. Do you have some compelling reason for rejecting my strategy of taking your points in order, one at a time? Is it because that forces you to actually respond to my arguments? That must be uncomfortable. If you don’t know the answers to my questions, please just be honest about it.

 

[Betterave]

It makes me “more dumber,” does it?

This is what we’re dealing with, folks.

Look at yourself, Anti. Do it.

Now think about this: anybody can make a mistake - there is no harm in this, as you yourself have acknowledged. ddarko, however, it seems, is capable of taking in a new concept that he hasn’t been exposed to before, understanding it, assimilating it, and beginning to even use it. Can you do that? He is also capable of directly responding when he is challenged. Can you do that? No evidence of such abilities on your part so far. Maybe you should try to emulate this young man. Petty closed-minded sniping - not interesting. Think about it.

p.s. He also asks some good questions. Got any answers?

 

[fhansen]

Well, I can’t speak for you, but I do have a lot of reasons for wanting to get up in the morning and to do things: I have friends and family and a job and hobbies and interests and all sorts of things that make life so enjoyable.

I’m willing to bet that if you examine your own life, you can generate quite a list of things that give your life meaning quite apart from any supernatural beliefs.

What I’m saying is that I think faith already exists in a more or less unconscious or rudimentary form in most people. It’s an innate trust that things will work out and that there’s some purpose in what I do, without necessarily much thought about it for long-term or deeper significance.

Catholicism claims to inform us further as to the existence of this faith, and its full purpose. But whether this faith is a formal one or a less-than-formal one, neither can be completely explained or justified on rational grounds, just like love can’t be proven to be a reality, only deduced based on its expressions that we observe in the world.

 

[Betterave]

What I’m saying is that I think faith already exists in a more or less unconscious or rudimentary form in most people. It’s an innate trust that things will work out and that there’s some purpose in what I do, without necessarily much thought about it for long-term or deeper significance.

Catholicism claims to inform us further as to the existence of this faith, and its full purpose. But whether this faith is a formal one or a less-than-formal one, neither can be completely explained or justified on rational grounds, just like love can’t be proven to be a reality, only deduced based on its expressions that we observe in the world.

Your claim is too vague, but so far as what it seems to mean: no, Catholicism does not really claim to inform us further about the existence of “this faith”: namely, the “more or less unconscious or rudimentary form” found in most people, the “innate trust that things will work out and that there’s some purpose in what I do, without necessarily much thought about it for long-term or deeper significance” - at least, if it does inform us about this, it does not do so in a positive sense. That’s more what Oprah Winfrey claims to inform us about.