Comment by Chang Yuon at 11:25pm March 8
very cool. do you have the clip with your question? I'd like to see it.

Comment by Emma Briones at 12:46am March 9
okay mr. hom i've only read a few paragraphs and im still confused =)

Comment by Keith R. Adams at 1:01am March 9
Thanks Darren for being there. Thanks for the question.

Comment by David Fitzgerald at 5:16am March 9
Darren, Because of your constant advocating, Brother Man, I'm going to read Thomas Kuhn. But that said, I find it very hard to believe that Kuhn ever said that science cannot progress toward truth. Does he explicitly say this? And if so, can you tell me where - that sounds like a gross simplification, besides being demonstrably untrue. The very fact that we're having this conversation on computer and not by smoke signal shows that science DOES make progress in uncovering how reality works, regardless of how paradigms may clash.

Comments by Darren Hom at 9:40am March 9

Chang, I wish I did have a clip of it. It may yet appear, as people keep posting footage from their video cameras to YouTube. So far, most of the footage has been of the "crazy guy" yelling at Dawkins. :)

Can't blame you for being confused, Emma. I only had thirty seconds to ask the question, and that question came out of the context of Dawkins' two-hour lecture and a 200-page book by Kuhn. Kuhn's book is definitely worth reading if Dawkins (1) read it, and (2) didn't have an answer for it.

Thanks for commenting, Dave! I look forward to chatting with you about Kuhn next time I'm in California. Yes, Kuhn does explicitly make that claim. For example, on pp. 170-171 of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (third edition):

In the sciences there need not be progress of another sort. We may, to be more precise, have to relinquish the notion, explicit or implicit, that changes of paradigm carry scientists and those who learn from them closer and closer to the truth.

It is now time to notice that until the last very few pages the term 'truth' had entered this essay only in a quotation frorn Francis Bacon. And even in those pages it entered only as a source for the scientist's conviction that incompatible rules for doing science cannot coexist except during revolutions when the profession's main task is to eliminate all sets but one. The developmental process described in this essay has been a process of evolution FROM primitive beginnings - a process whose successive stages are characterized by an increasingly detailed and refined understanding of nature. But nothing that has been or will be said makes it a process of evolution TOWARD anything. Inevitably that lacuna will have disturbed many readers. We are all deeply accustomed to seeing science as the one enterprise that draws constantly nearer to some goal set by nature in advance.

But need there be any such goal? Can we not account for both science's existence and its success in terms of evolution from the community's state of knowledge at any given time? Does it really help to imagine that there is some one full, objective, true account of nature and that the proper measure of scientific achievement is the extent to which it brings us closer to that ultimate goal? If we can learn to substitute evolution-from-what-we-do-know for evolution-toward-what-we-wish-to-know, a number of vexing problems may vanish in the process. Somewhere in the maze, for example, must lie the problem of induction.

(end quote)

Dave, you said that "that sounds like a gross simplification, besides being demonstrably untrue." Your assumption you can approach the truth by this kind of analysis contradicts what Kuhn is saying, so you're assuming Kuhn is wrong in advance before you even start analyzing what he's saying. Dave, as I've been saying, this is unavoidable. It is impossible to conduct any kind of "neutral" investigation, as is demonstrated in your own approach to Kuhn.

I agree with you that Kuhn is wrong. The question is whether any non-Christian worldview can provide an adequate answer to Kuhn showing WHY he is wrong. This question is the central focus of what I called "The Kuhn Project" in the blog entry we are commenting on.

I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts on Kuhn. Thanks for sharing!

Oh, and I should also add that Kuhn does address this statement, Dave: "The very fact that we're having this conversation on computer and not by smoke signal shows that science DOES make progress in uncovering how reality works, regardless of how paradigms may clash."

He says that science does make progress, but this progress is pragmatic, toward what WORKS, not what is TRUE. According to Kuhn, it is possible to have many different (and incompatible) theories that explain the phenomena we observe. Which theory we pick is determined by which theory is most consistent with the reigning paradigm.

If paradigms change periodically, and the paradigms are truly incommensurable (use concepts and definitions that are not compatible from one paradigm to the next), the paradigms can aid in the development of technology and in explaining the phenomena we observe, but they cannot be said to be progress toward truth.

To say this would be to say that the previous paradigm was "partially true" and that today's is "more true." But how can we say this if the paradigms utterly contradict each other?

Again, I don't agree with Kuhn's conclusion here, but one still has to adequately deal with his arguments.

Comment by David Fitzgerald at 11:08am March 9
Thanks, Man. IMHO, it sounds like Kuhn is asserting that there is no teleological, ultimate "The Truth" that science is aiming for, and that it is an unfolding evolutionary process. I don't think most scientists would have any problem saying that.

If he's suggesting (and I'm not convinced he is) that the ONLY criteria we use to select theories is what fits the current reigning, or that paradigm shifts always are 100% incommensurable with their predecessors then of course I disagree. We can sometimes say (again, IMHO) that a previous paradigm was "partially true" (or even completely untrue!) and that today's is "more true" but only if that new paradigm does work - and work better -than the old one.

Comment by Keith R. Adams at 11:44am March 9
David, I don't know you but I agree...after hearing about Kuhn's book in a number of Darren's conversations, I need to take the time to read it. Thank for the prompt Darren.

Comment by Darren Hom at 1:30pm March 9
Thanks for writing, Dave. Yes, I agree that Kuhn is saying there is no teleological "truth" that science is aiming for. I do think that Kuhn is saying something broader than this, though. If science is moving toward the truth, and today's paradigm is more true than yesterday's, how do you think Kuhn should define truth in a way that is consistent with the following statements?

"Nothing that has been or will be said makes it a process of evolution TOWARD anything."

"We are all deeply accustomed to seeing science as the one enterprise that draws constantly nearer to some goal set by nature in advance."

"Does it really help to imagine that there is some one full, objective, true account of nature and that the proper measure of scientific achievement is the extent to which it brings us closer to that ultimate goal?"

"If we can learn to substitute evolution-from-what-we-do-know for evolution-toward-what-we-wish-to-know, a number of vexing problems may vanish in the process."

"Somewhere in the maze, for example, must lie the problem of induction."

I think it would help to read Kuhn's book in order to put these statements in their proper context. (They do, after all, come from page 170 out of a 200-page book.)

I do think it's helpful to note that this conversation displays some of the things Kuhn says characterize science. For example:

We are bent on using the word "truth," a word that Kuhn hardly uses in his arguments, instead using words like "paradigm" and "exemplar." Kuhn is thinking using a conceptual framework that most people don't even know how to assimilate. How do you talk about the progress of science without, at the same time, speaking of truth?

Dave uses the terminology "demonstrably untrue," words that most scientists would not have a problem using. In contrast, Kuhn speaks of truth in a detached way - not calling particular ideas true or false, but questioning the usefulness of truth-terminology itself.

Kuhn would probably say that Dave is working within a different paradigm than Kuhn himself is. Because of this, David Fitzgerald and Thomas Kuhn are speaking past each other, using different definitions for the same word (such as "truth" and "progress").

Kuhn says there is a way to get around this. We can start thinking in terms of a paradigm other than the one we are currently working within. When Dave reads Kuhn's book and understands what Kuhn means when he talks about a paradigm shift, along with all of the evidence Kuhn presents, he may say later that he disagrees with Kuhn, but he does understand Kuhn and the problems that Kuhn has raised for modern science.

Can you see how, for example, Kuhn's paradigm and the paradigm of logical positivism are incommensurable? From the Wikipedia article:

"Perhaps the view for which the logical positivists are best known is the verifiability criterion of meaning, or verificationism. In one of its earlier and stronger formulations, this is the doctrine that a proposition is "cognitively meaningful" only if there is a finite procedure for conclusively determining whether it is true or false."

Positivism STARTS OUT assuming it's not only possible to show that propositions are true or false, but that there are procedures for making those determinations. Because positivism and Kuhn start in different places, it is impossible to reconcile their theories in a consistent way. The basic assumption of positivism is incompatible with the way Kuhn looks at the world. Those paradigms are "incommensurable." Yes, it's possible to understand two incommensurable paradigms, but it's not possible to integrate them into one theory or to progress rationally from one paradigm to another. To do so would be to generate contradictions at the most basic level.

What is true of Dave's view of science and Kuhn's view (incommensurability), and of positivism and Kuhn's view (incommensurability), Kuhn says is true of all scientific paradigms, giving examples from physics, chemistry, biology, and astronomy.

The book is definitely worth reading if you get a chance. :)

Comment by Darren Hom at 2:41pm March 9
Oh - I forgot to answer this question! Sorry:

"If he's suggesting (and I'm not convinced he is) that the ONLY criteria we use to select theories is what fits the current reigning [paradigm]... then of course I disagree."

Kuhn says that during periods of normal science, the only criteria we use are the ones provided by the reigning paradigm. These limitations allow us to focus our attention on addressing scientific puzzles that are considered important today.

For example, for hundreds of years, we worked assuming the "law" of the conservation of energy, which served us very well. We rejected models, such as perpetual motion engines, that contradicted Newton's "laws." Now we've found that Newton's laws aren't "true" the way that Newton thought they were, that they are just useful approximations. Relativistic quantum mechanics tells us today that particles can appear and disappear without following any conservation of energy "law."

The transition between Newtonian physics and modern physics was a paradigm shift. Instead of making common progress toward solving problems, scientists spent most of their time arguing over definitions and concepts:

Is light a particle or a wave?
Does God play dice with the universe?
How can a particle go through two slits or more at the same time and come out intact at the other end?
Is energy conserved?

During periods of paradigm shift, the theory-selecting criteria are themselves in question. The lack of unity in scientists' beliefs makes it difficult to get any work done.

Imagine how hard it was for scientists in a Newtonian framework to let go of the concept of the conservation of energy. Now imagine one of them letting go of this basic criterion BEFORE the paradigm shift occurred. He would have been run out of the scientific community for even suggesting that energy isn't conserved.

He would then have spent his entire life trying to disprove the conservation of energy without the support he needs from other scientists, without funding, and without the specialized equipment that is necessary to measure quantum fluctuations.

His life ends up being a waste while his friends develop steam engines and airplanes based on Newton's Laws.

According to Kuhn, science cannot function without a reigning paradigm, and progress is only possible because the reigning paradigm focuses scientists on research activities that are helpful at the time.

This is just another way of saying that you and I have presuppositions and live according to them. No research, even scientific research, is neutral or presupposition-free.

Comment by Ting Wang at 10:38am March 10
mr hom, very impressive good sir, praise the Lord for giving you such an incisive intellect. indeed, since science (via the scientific "method") is based on induction, which is always a formal (structural/integral) logical fallacy, science cannot discover truth whatsoever. and i say that authoritatively, since i am not basing that statement on science, lol! :) may we all find rest and peace (and an indomitable intellectual worldview) in the Logos, who alone makes reason and logic (and a viable epistemology) possible. :) praise his name.

Comment by David Howlett at 7:43pm March 10
I think Kuhn needs a spanking

Rebekah Rogers at 11:58pm March 14
hmm...interesting...and yet another book to add to my massively long reading list...

btw...I found it interesting how Dawkins admitted that there was no foundation for morality in athiesm...first time I have heard an athiest admit that...and I thought his purpose argument was lame...and kinda circular

Carl Pelz at 8:06pm March 15
Darren, many thanks for this line of inquiry prompting me to reread this classic. if Kuhn would suggest that science can't get us any nearer to moral truth, i'd be in agreement, but all truth? don't so. on pg. 172, Kuhn asks a fundamental question: "What must nature, including man, be like in order that science is possible at all?" have you read any Feyerabend, in particular, "Against Method" (that is, scientific method)?

Darren Hom at 8:50pm March 15
Pastor Ting, thanks for writing. I hadn't given much thought to using Kuhn's arguments in favor of Clarkian apologetics. How do you think hermeneutics fits into the picture? More specifically, can exegetical study move us closer to truth?

Darren Hom at 8:51pm March 15
Rebekah, good point about Dawkins' view of morality. On the one hand, he says that we can choose our own purpose, but on the other, he says that those who teach religion to their young children are doing something evil.

How do you think Dawkins himself would try to reconcile that discrepancy?

Darren Hom at 8:57pm March 15
Thanks for bringing up the phrase from p.173, Carl. The way I interpret Kuhn, he's not saying there is no such thing as truth, but that it's not necessary for us to think of science as actually moving toward such truth. For example, he goes says on p.173:

"[The question Carl brings up] is as old as science itself, and it remains unanswered. But it need not be answered in the first place. Any conception of nature compatible with the growth of science by proof is compatible with the evolutionary view of science described here. Since this view is compatible with close observation of scientific life, there are strong arguments for employing it it attempts to solve the host of problems that still remain."

Those are the closing words of his book.

Kuhn seems to imply that there is something objectively true about the world and the nature of man that makes scientific inquiry possible, but for science to work, (1) we don't have to know what it is,
(2) there may even be several possible types of realities that make science possible (see the phrase "any conception of nature"), and (3) science itself doesn't have to approach such a truth for that truth to make science effective.

At the end of p.172 and the beginning of p.173, he says that science can develop by an "increase in articulation and specialization... without the benefit of a set goal, a permanent fixed scientific truth, OF WHICH EACH STAGE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE IS A BETTER EXEMPLAR." (emphasis mine)

It's not just that the paradigms are "not completely true." In Kuhn's world, an increase in articulation and specialization does not have to be accompanied by an improved conformity to some objective truth.

I think a simple way to summarize Kuhn would be, "an objective truth is necessary for science to become more articulate and specialized, but the progress itself does not have to be toward objective truth."

Kuhn recognizes that there are preconditions that must exist for science to work. He doesn't have an answer for what they are, and he says that we don't really need one.

I would agree with Kuhn on the first point and disagree with him on the second. Presuppositional apologetics argues that these preconditions are the all-knowing, all-powerful, morally faithful God of the Bible. Non-Christian worldviews cannot present such set of preconditions without creating contradictions with their own presuppositions. That is why Kuhn's arguments are so powerful.

Kuhn himself cannot provide a set of preconditions that make his own theory work. In the end, his theory contradicts itself, being simply one paradigm in a chain of paradigms that does not progress toward truth. Only Christianity provides the answers for Kuhn's questions.

Here is one approach: the "Matrix argument."

http://www.xanga.com/godmadescience/604592120/item/

Darren Hom at 9:18pm March 15
So Pastor Ting, to play devil's advocate with you :), can it be argued that God communicates truth through the sciences by ordinary providence?

Ting Wang at 9:26pm March 15
it can be argued, but it would be wrong. :) only scripture is true (and logical deductions from it). the scientific method is based on induction, which is always a formal logical fallacy. and as God is not illogical (since he is the logos), truth cannot come through induction.

Darren Hom at 9:42pm March 15
To some extent, do you think linguistics and history rely on induction, and what influence do you think that has on the task of hermeneutics?

Ting Wang at 9:57pm March 15
i think linguistics and history as practiced in general can rely to some degree on induction, but i do not think biblical linguistics and history do, given that Scripture is a closed corpus from which by God's grace we can deduce information. and ultimately only biblical principles provide the preconditions that preserve the intelligiblity of all linguistic and historical empirical data.

David Howlett at 10:26pm March 15
Let me reiterate-- Kuhn really needs a spanking

Ting Wang at 10:28pm March 15
with regard to the task of hermeneutics, darren i think we are agreed that no amount of training in linguistics or history or science or new testament greek or any field can enable one to understand scripture if God does not open blind eyes and grant his Spirit of illumination. as paul writes, "the man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 corinthians 2:14). as you know, one must be a christian to understand scripture--if one is not a christian, scripture (and the gospel) appears to be foolishness, whatever the academic training. :) thanks for the devil's advocate stuff, darren, it is great to think through such things with you. :)

More comments from Facebook

Rebekah Rogers
Well, seeing that Dawkins views those who believe in "religion" as having a mental disorder...I don't think he would see the need to resolve the discrepancy...notice all the examples he gave of finding purpose were focused on the self, and teaching children "religion" takes focus off the the self...so religion would not help them find their purpose
March 15 at 11:45pm

Ting Wang
In his book "River Out of Eden," Richard Dawkins writes, ""On the contrary, if the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies like the crashing of this bus are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. It would manifest no ... Read Moreintentions of any kind. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A. E. Housman put it:
For Nature, heartless, witiless Nature
Will neither know nor care.
DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music" (pp. 132-33).
March 16 at 11:54am

Ting Wang
Let' s ponder together what Dawkins is asserting. He says there is no good/evil, no meaning, no purpose.

It is absurd, then, that Dawkins says that religion is "evil" or that one can find purpose in oneself.

No wonder he is reduced to calling others names. The one who has no ground upon which to reason or debate resorts to ad hominems. :)
March 16 at 11:59am

Ryan Heerwagen
Hmm.... a random commenter here.

Ok, just saw your quote. Hmm.... I guess that Kuhn sees science as a problem solving mechanism, not as a grand scheme in and of itself. This makes sense, and I suppose he might look at science more from a Pragmatic perspective, and see it as satisfying their criterion of truth, which does not emphasize the external.

I would bet that Dawkins wouldn't have a perfect way to address Kuhn, mostly because many scientistic atheists long for something more akin to logical positivism, or even Popperianism. The crowd also probably knows little about science.... Read More

As for the validity of science, I don't think it is science's claim to be valid for all things, but rather to be a useful epistemic frame for some things, which I doubt Kuhn could be disputed. Those who are scientistic usually claim that science has found enough solutions to intellectual problems to reduce away all religious concepts.
March 19 at 6:55pm

Ryan Heerwagen
The notion of Kuhn's theory not being a final stand on truth does not really prevent him from being useful for human purposes, which is how one can argue for it. After all, creating a new paradigm from his view, solves a lot of existing problems, which allows him to value it.

As for the issue of the Bible and induction. Umm, an issue is that there... Read More are multiple theological views. If the issue is straight-up deduction, then the disproof of these views should have come up quickly, as deduction is pretty simple. The issue is that differences exist and are long-standing, this seems to suggest either that all Christians that disagree with the right worldview aren't Christians,(only Calvinists are Christians?) or that Biblical principles are known through induction, which is messy.

As for Dawkins and arguing against religion, mental disorder" is improper given the need of teleology, but notions of falseness and subjective harm seem basic enough to use.
March 19 at 7:09pm

Ryan Heerwagen
As for the atheist dealing with Kuhn, well, a more skeptical or pragmatist version of atheism, perhaps even Max Stirner's existential egoism could do it, but is probably over the top.

Intelligent atheists often try to be skeptical, and only the scientistic rationalists seem to show great dogmatism.

In any case, I might not see the issue that ... Read Morewell. I don't see presuppositional apologetics as being that solid given that it's task is to prove every other belief false, an impossible task given that not all possible beliefs are known, and other possible beliefs have powerful deities. Not only that, but I would think the argumentation would just go past pragmatists. I would still think more classic apologetic methods would be necessary, and even then, those are indeterminate, as Van Til tried to show with Mr. White, Grey and Black.
March 19 at 7:20pm

Ting Wang
"Those who are scientistic usually claim that science has found enough solutions to intellectual problems to reduce away all religious concepts."

--What solutions to intellectual problems has science found? It is unable to account for how we got here (cosmology), how we know things (epistemology) and what is right and wrong (ethics).

"The issue is that differences exist and are long-standing, this seems to suggest either that all Christians that disagree with the right worldview aren't Christians,(only Calvinists are Christians?) or that Biblical principles are known through induction, which is messy."

--Biblical principles are not known through induction, since Scripture is complete and unchanging. Instead, God sovereignly enables some people to understand Scripture and some not. For instance, Jesus says, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children" (Luke 10:21).
March 19 at 8:21pm

Ting Wang
"Intelligent atheists often try to be skeptical, and only the scientistic rationalists seem to show great dogmatism."

--Skepticism is irrational because it insists one cannot really know. On what grounds then does one know one cannot know? Skepticism is self-refuting, and does not display intelligence. With regard to "scientistic rationalists," they are in fact not rational at all. How do they account for reason (and why trust it) if, as Dawkins suggest, they are only dancing to their DNA?

"I don't see presuppositional apologetics as being that solid given that it's task is to prove every other belief false, an impossible task given that not all possible beliefs are known, and other possible beliefs have powerful deities."

--It is not that presuppostional apologetics refutes inductively, but that it has refuted every known non-biblical system of thought (none of which has a viable epistemology, for starters). In addition, how do you know other deities are "powerful?"
March 19 at 8:36pm

Ryan Heerwagen
Science does not deal with epistemology much, save with . The matter of cosmology it touches upon, but not on the level that metaphysical doctrines are fully established. The issue of ethics, it can actually arguably argue against ethics by arguing that ethical principles are not derived from external things, but rather are just mental categories ... Read Moredeveloped through evolutionary principles.

Scripture being complete does not mean "no induction", there is a set of data and theories of making it coherent have to be pulled out as scripture is not a textbook, but rather has literary qualities in some places. Now, you are right, the Holy Spirit could arguably deal with induction, but the issue then becomes the problem of Christian doctrinal dissent. Either anyone who disagrees with you does not have the Holy Spirit, or there is induction, and it is that simple.
March 19 at 9:04pm

Ryan Heerwagen
Well, to be a skeptic, all that must be known is that in practice, epistemology is flawed, not that epistemology is necessarily flawed or anything like that. This does not seem to be hard to argue, however, the issue is how skeptical we go. In any case, the notion that people practice epistemology perfectly is so ridiculous as to be a strawman, ... Read Morethere are psychologists who study the errors in human reasoning. As for the scientistic rationalists, I would attack their scientism first. As for your problem, it can be argued that reason is the result of an iterative process of improved heuristics for survival, and that based upon their reason there is reason to trust it, and there is no way to live without trusting it.
March 19 at 9:13pm

Ryan Heerwagen
As for the non-biblical systems of thought, you have to refute every variant, of which there are many. And in order to prove your point, you also have to refute possible future variants. In any case, I would already put atheist pragmatism and existentialism in a hard to refute category given that they de-emphasize transcendental issues and ... Read Moremetaphysical necessities.

As for your own epistemology, well, the notion of "without means" is difficult to give logical credibility to. After all, you cannot prove the reliability of the Holy Spirit, you assume it, where an omnipotent fiend could give a false message to you. The issue is that knowledge and certitude are different, and you could arguably be given certitude by many things, including drugs and brainwashing, but neither give knowledge. Finally, "without means" is very dead-end, a solipsist could argue their position using such an idea.
March 19 at 9:24pm

Ryan Heerwagen
Finally, as for the issue of other deities, I honestly wouldn't argue for them, however, I could easily claim that they meanslessly tell me about their characteristics. Perhaps a deist God has decided to meanslessly give beings of a certain intellectual development a connection into universal realities. This kind of argument could even try to argue Christians are presupposing deism.

In any case, I don't worship Thor or anything like that, I just don't like presuppositionalism. After all, even if the claims of presuppositionalism are true on the need for a Christian ontology for epistemology, they still don't prove the ontological assumptions of Christianity, and that issue seems major given the different epistemologies and roles of epistemologies in varied worldviews. Not only that, but is there evidence that historically presuppositionalism is the Christian apologetic? If Van Til invented it, then it is an addition to Christianity, and not Christianity itself, a problem I'd think.
March 19 at 9:32pm

Ting Wang
--Ryan, thanks for the interactions. Darren, at your word we will gladly move this discussion offline if it's too much for folks. :)

--Scripture presents an unchanging and comprehensive worldview from which all truth can be deduced. Induction does not enter into the Scriptural worldview because in the wisdom of God there will never be more "Scriptural data" to consider. Deductions from Scripture do not always match because the Lord grants insight to some and not others.

--If all is just "dancing to DNA" as Dawkins asserts, on what grounds can a "materialist" or "naturalist" assert a distinction between "external things" and "mental categories?" They would be based on chemical reactions "dancing" to the same equations.

--If the skeptic "must" know that epistemology is flawed, this is self-refuting and irrational, for on what ground can he know this?
March 19 at 9:34pm

Ryan Heerwagen
Well... ok, to clarify, a problem given presuppositionalism's relationship to the Christian worldview is a stance that it embodies it, rather than is incidental to it, as classical apologetics recognizedly are.
March 19 at 9:34pm

Ryan Heerwagen
Well, induction does not have anything to do with adding data necessarily. It has to do with the selection of data to make a worldview. Scripture, not being itself a systematic theology, but rather something that systematic theologies try to develop, is a realm where induction occurs. Deductions from Scripture HAVE TO MATCH if they are validly ... Read Moredeductions, as deductions are purely matters of logic. Induction is where non-logical elements can enter the process, this includes the Holy Spirit.

I actually think that this is a problem with naturalism, but not one refuting it. For instance, on some level, the problems with distinguishing between the two on a radical empirical view are known, as seen with Kuhn's paradigm. However, it is also apparent from mental states, that there are 2 different realms. This could be false, but there is no reason to think they are the same. In any case, Stirner, a man I mentioned probably didn't care.
March 19 at 9:41pm

Ting Wang
--One obvious problem of other deities is that they do not provide us with a "logos," a consistent epistemology. This facts alone points to the superiority of the biblical God.

--Thank you for graciously admitting that the claims of Christianity are perhaps true on the basis of its superior (and only consistent) epistemology. May the Lord God lead you into all truth, if that is his good pleasure.

--Presuppositionalism was not invented by Van Til. Jesus is the logos who gives "light to every man" (i.e. reason), and Paul instructs the church in Corinth to "demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God," and to "take every thought captive to obedience to Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:5). :)

--Blessings! :)
March 19 at 9:41pm

Ryan Heerwagen
As for the skeptic, he must know that at some point he thought he was right, and later found that he was not right. This is enough to hold epistemologies somewhat skeptically, as it separates certitude from knowledge enough that they might not be the same.
March 19 at 9:42pm

Ryan Heerwagen
Well have you reviewed *all* other religions? Even ones claiming a newer revelation? I mean, I already had a theoretical Deism that used the same meansless method of conveying information that you accepted as the Holy Spirit.

Well.... I was not even trying to argue against Christianity per se. Only particular ideas. Nothing I have argued against ... Read Moreis necessarily essential for Christian doctrine.

Umm..... that does not mean that Paul invented presuppositional apologetics. After all, the idea came along in the 20th century with Cornelius Van Til and Gordon Clark, whereas a purely scriptural idea seems as if it would exist in early Christendom and be upheld until the present age, instead of being discovered by 2 Christian philosophers.
March 19 at 9:47pm

Ting Wang
"I would already put atheist pragmatism and existentialism in a hard to refute category given that they de-emphasize transcendental issues and metaphysical necessities."

--Actually they are simple to refute. How do they know anything (since they do not have a consistent epistemology)?

--The reliability of the Holy Spirit is not assumed. It is clearly taught in Scripture: "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13).... Read More

"Deductions from Scripture HAVE TO MATCH if they are validly, as deductions are purely matters of logic. Induction is where non-logical elements can enter the process, this includes the Holy Spirit."

--This is not true. Logic as practiced by people is not "objective" or perfect but is colored by sin.

--The Holy Spirit is indeed a most logical element, being sent from the Logos himself, and teaching truth.
March 19 at 9:51pm

Ting Wang
"Well... ok, to clarify, a problem given presuppositionalism's relationship to the Christian worldview is a stance that it embodies it, rather than is incidental to it, as classical apologetics recognizedly are."

--Given that the Christian worldview is comprehensive, it of course includes apologetics. This is not a weakness but a strength. :)
March 19 at 9:53pm

Even MORE comments from Facebook:

Ting Wang
"Well have you reviewed *all* other religions? Even ones claiming a newer revelation? I mean, I already had a theoretical Deism that used the same meansless method of conveying information that you accepted as the Holy Spirit."

--I think if you study Deism carefully you will perhaps see that it does not agree with Scripture's position that God is constantly sustaining his creation: "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word" (Hebrews 1:3).

--If there is some "new revelation" or new religion, let us study it. I am certain we will find that it falls short, starting with the all-important matter of epistemology--how does it know anything at all?

--Again, presuppositionally is how Jesus himself argued (for instance when outreasoning the Sadducees on matters of marriage law). It is not something only recently invented. This does not surprise us, for logically is the way God himself reasons.
March 19 at 10:02pm

Ryan Heerwagen
Well, the issue is that neither philosophy really puts emphasis on consistency. Pragmatism puts it's emphasis on useful epistemology, and is even willing to accept things that are logically incoherent as valid if they are useful. Existentialism puts it's emphasis on the individual's will, and some of it's thinkers have derided consistency as being ... Read Moreless true in a complicated world, and generally put more emphasis on being.

Assumed means assumed by the Christian. Your apologetic is not about talking to yourself, but rather it involves a non-Christian. I mean, yes, it is nice to point to the Bible, but nobody is convinced by a display of circularity.

So, non-Christians start to radically sin when they start reading the Bible, but are equally good, if not better than Christians everywhere else? That sounds like a rather weird hypothesis.
March 19 at 10:02pm

Ryan Heerwagen
Umm... the issue of logically comprehensible. The Holy Spirit is being used in an apologetic here, not just in theological discourse. I mean, I understand that your argument is that everyone is secretly a Christian, but those who claim not to be will pretty much reject an idea such as that to be nonsense, no matter how many times you quote Romans 1... Read More:20. The point being to actually make a connection with them, not be seen as weird.

The Christian view is the view that descended from Christ, his apostles, and the Jewish peoples. God's worldview can use innovations, but these innovations cannot become central to the doctrine, as I see presuppositional apologetics as having to be in order to be taken as valid.
March 19 at 10:06pm

Ting Wang
--Hi Ryan, you write that pragmatism is "willing to accept things that are logically incoherent as valid if they are useful." But how does it know what is useful? And what may at first seem "useful" may in the end be very detrimental and erroneous, particularly if logic is ignored.

--The Christian worldview is based on Scripture. So I am not... Read More assuming the Holy Spirit teaches truth, but merely asserting what Scripture asserts. The next question should be how do I know Scripture is true and that rests upon its comprehensiveness (in metaphysics, ethics and epistemology, to start). But much as you above used reason to posit reason, so Scripture is the axiom of the Christian worldview. But it has the advantage of providing the only consistent epistemology by which we can know anything at all.
March 19 at 10:12pm

Ryan Heerwagen
Well, the Deist doesn't have to uphold your scripture. He is the one you are trying to convince. Not only that, but a Deist could continually sustain creation while not intervening in it. The central doctrine of Deism is one of a creating God who did not intervene to have miraculous occurrences, so I do not think that a Deist God as a sustainer is ... Read Morea huge issue to them so much as a God that needs to intervene.

Well, ok, but the issue is that I still think that an argument against everything is a bad way of doing things.

Are you talking about Matt 22:29-32? That wasn't a presuppositional argument so much as an explanation of a good way to interpret religious doctrine. 30 is a solution to the asked question, and 31 & 32 argue that religion scripture implicitly indicates that resurrection occurs.
March 19 at 10:15pm

Ting Wang
--Actually, Ryan, sin is not merely behavior. As Scripture teaches us, "every inclination of the thoughts of our hearts is evil all the time" (Genesis 6:5). Hence sin is a fatal condition, one that "blinds our minds" (2 Corinthians 4:4). No one is good; the distinction between Christians and non-Christians is the work of God in the former. If ... Read Moreit sounds weird, that is partly why the gospel is considered "foolishness" among unbelievers.

--Let me say it this way. We are all lost in sin. We all need a righteous status that we cannot attain or accomplish on our own, no matter how good we think we are. That righteousness (as status, not ontology) can be had through faith in Christ (being clothed in his perfect righteousness), if God so wills. :)
March 19 at 10:17pm

Ryan Heerwagen
What is useful? Whatever is directly apparent as such, it can easily be subjective. Ok, but the possibility of detrimental things is something that the Pragmatist eliminates. Pragmatists just reject the notion of transcendentals.

The Christian worldview is also based upon correct interpretation of the Scripture, which is not possible without the ... Read MoreHoly Spirit. You assume you have it, but you don't *have to* have it, it is logically possible that you are some deceived fool.(Matt 7:21-23, 2 Cor 11:14) After all, you haven't outright said so, but some people obviously are, and they cannot necessarily know that they are not deceived. As for being the only consistent worldview, that is something your apologetic has to establish to people who disagree, against any other worldview to boot, even something like solipsism.
March 19 at 10:22pm

Ting Wang
--With regard to Deism, God's sustaining creation is God's "intervening" constantly in it. There is no absentia in any respect for the biblical God, contra the tenets deism. The question for deists goes back to "how do they know?" How does the deist know there are no miracles? Their own reason? How do they account for the authority of their ... Read Moreown reason? Isn't it just matter in motion, "dancing to DNA?" Why should we believe them? Where is the logical justification for their views?

--Thank you for looking up Matthew 22:29-32. In that pericope Jesus establishes the truth of Scripture by presupposing the truth of the comprehensive biblical worldview. Although Jesus defeats his opponents easily, he could have gone on to show their deficiency in epistemology, ethics, metaphysics, soteriology, etc.
March 19 at 10:25pm

Ryan Heerwagen
I did not say anything about sin or say that wrong action was only behavior. In any case, you can also throw Isaiah 44:20 in there. I also did not argue that anyone met any ethical standard. The issue is that you argue that non-Christians *only* have deductive problems reading your Bible. This seems rather absurd, particularly given that a more parsimonious theory seems possible compared to something so contrived seeming.

Umm.... ok? I don't see why I am being told about Christian doctrine.
March 19 at 10:28pm

Ting Wang
--One serious problem with solipsism "my mind is the only thing that exists"--if this is what you mean--is that the worldview cannot account for where the mind comes from in the first place (cosmology).

--If pragmatists determine usefulness on the basis of "whatever is directly apparent as such," then it should establish the validity of sensation... Read More (which has been refuted time and again in the history of philosophy, not to mention also in Scripture).

--The possibility of being a decieved fool is eliminated by recognizing that Scripture teaches us that deceived fools do not recognize the coherent and comprehensive Scriptural worldview, or call upon Jesus as Savior and Lord.
March 19 at 10:33pm

Ryan Heerwagen
Sustaining and intervention aren't really the same things. Sustaining is just powering it, sort of like plugging a toaster in. Intervening is more like reworking the toaster on occasion, and making it do weird things. God incarnating isn't sustaining it, but rather it is intervening in it. God parting the Red Sea isn't sustaining, but it is ... Read Moreintervening. The list can go on and on. How do they know? Well, their deist God has allowed for intelligent minds to know that the world is defined by constancy, and that miraculous claims are a poor medium to convey knowledge because they can be lied about.(obviously many must be given false religious claims)

Umm... no, he actually just uses this to argue his own worldview in the context of Judaism. I think you are reading stuff onto Scripture there, as that wasn't an apologetic so much as an intelligent comment by Jesus on why his own theological beliefs were better than those of other Jews holding to the same Scripture.
March 19 at 10:35pm

Ting Wang
--Lol Ryan you are being told about the Christian worldview because it solves the problem of epistemology and that alone should commend it. In addition, I think it is a worldivew that provides abundant meaning and hope and as God so wills, I pray these can be yours.

--Yes, it may seem foolish to you, but only people to whom God has granted the ... Read MoreSpirit can understand the things of the Spirit, and since Scripture was written by men carried along by the Spirit, reasoning deductively :) only Christians can understand Scripture. I pray that the Lord God would draw you to himself and open to you that rich storehouse that is his eternal Word.
March 19 at 10:37pm

Ryan Heerwagen
The thinker could just reject the cosmological argument, and then have no problem. The thinker could also uphold a pantheist idea where they are just an incarnation of their eternal self.

Actually, yes, they uphold that sensation is valid. They don't uphold absolute standards of knowledge though, which means that your comment on refutation does ... Read Morenot apply to them. They don't uphold a necessary system of knowledge, only going with what they seem to be given.

How about Open Theists? How about Universalists? Both of these can uphold the idea that scripture is highly valid, but both are probably heretically wrong by your view. I think you are avoiding a very big problem, and are trying to squirm out of it.
March 19 at 10:41pm

Ryan Heerwagen
Ting, I just hate your apologetic. I am not arguing that Christianity is wrong. You can confuse the 2, but that seems an obvious error.

I also am not calling the Christian doctrine foolish, I am arguing that your apologetic, and your particular philosophy are foolish, and are separate from Christian doctrine. I have said nothing about the atonement, about God, or about Christian ethics. As for reasoning deductively, maybe those men did when writing it down, however, they likely did some induction given that they had to sort a mass of data to get at specifics.(John 21:15) Not only that, but your doctrine of localized failed deduction just seems questionable, particularly given that hermeneutics is generally an inductive process, and is treated like such in theological practice given references to historical context, the appeal to original language, and the use of multiple scriptures to establish a point. There is a difference in saying "Ting is wrong" and saying "Christianity is wrong"
March 19 at 10:53pm

Ting Wang
--With regard to Jesus' asserting the truth of the resurrection to the Sadduccees (who denied the resurrection), Jesus appealed to Scripture for a "prooftext," demonstrating both the truth of the resurrection and that Scripture is consistent and true. This is presuppositionalism.

--Given that the deists present a god that is contrary to the God of Scripture, they no longer have a viable epistemology, so cannot know.

--the thinker would have to be able to logically justify why his belief that his mind is the only thing that exists is valid. He can assert all kinds of things, but how does he know? If he says his mind tells so, then on what grounds is his mind authoritative? This leads to the problem of circularity. And where did the eternal self come from?

--asserting that sensation is only sometimes true reduces to irrational skepticism, because on what grounds (other than sensation which is to be proved) can one determine which sensations are true and which false?
March 19 at 10:58pm

Ting Wang
--Hi Ryan, I am glad you do not think Christianity is wrong. I hope someday by the grace of God you will think Christianity is right.

--With regard to Scripture and its writers, Peter tells us, "prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 2:21). And as the Spirit leads into all truth, Scripture is true.

--With regard to hermeneutics, I am not saying that Christians can reason deductively on their own. They do so as informed by the Logos, who is Christ. :) Nonetheless, the problem of induction exists for all the other worldviews you have mentioned tonight. And induction, to the detriment of all these worldviews, is a formal (structural) logical fallacy, resulting in self-refuting skepticism.... Read More

--You may have the last word in this discussion. I pray good things for you. May the Lord God grant you insight and wisdom as he sees fit, for the glory of his Name. :)
March 19 at 11:11pm

Ryan Heerwagen
Jesus appealed to scripture to deal with their problem to create a coherent and acceptable viewpoint in the context of Judaism. That was not presuppositionalism, as presuppositionalism is a doctrine created in the 20th century by 2 philosophers. In fact, it has very little in common with modern presuppositionalism.

Umm.... that isn't an apologetic. That is more like a blank assertion. People aren't going to accept the notion "my God is right and your ideas are wrong".

Well, he knows due to a direct revelation from himself, the source of all truth. An equivalent to God in his conception. On what grounds is God authoritative? Because He says so? Because your scripture written by people who are controlled by Him says so? That is just as circular.

Based upon other metrics. Pragmatism is pragmatic. It does not assert a necessary system, but rather goes with what works. If people find that sense works for them, they use it, if not then they don't.
March 19 at 11:13pm

Ryan Heerwagen
Ummm..... ok?

Well, right, scripture validates itself. That does not mean that a non-Christian will find it valid. Certainly does not work as an apologetic.

I am confused. For one, formal logic as you probably understand it is not the end of logic, philosophers even have logics that tolerate contradictions. For another thing, logic is not the beginning of epistemology, so referring to it seems absurd. Not only that, but I don't think your stance on hermeneutics makes much realistic sense.

Ok... in any case, on pragmatism and sense. The issue is that the pragmatist will see it as data, but not necessarily have a system for how data has to be interpreted. Some contexts, certain things can matter more than others. Pragmatism can be pretty relativistic, if I know it right.
March 19 at 11:21pm

Still more comments from Facebook:

Tim Graf
A comment, Darren, onyour comment from 11:03 am on March 19:

'Oh, and I should also add that Kuhn does address this statement, Dave: "The very fact that we're having this conversation on computer and not by smoke signal shows that science DOES make progress in uncovering how reality works, regardless of how paradigms may clash."

He says that science does make progress, but this progress is pragmatic, toward ... Read Morewhat WORKS, not what is TRUE. According to Kuhn, it is possible to have many different (and incompatible) theories that explain the phenomena we observe. Which theory we pick is determined by which theory is most consistent with the reigning paradigm.'... Read More

You seem to be misinterpreting Kuhn's quote. He says science does make progress towards an understanding of HOW reality works. If you understand better how something works, then you would seem to be closer to the truth. Two incompatible theories may both explain how something works, in which case we may not be
March 21 at 10:53am

Tim Graf
able to say which is truer, but presumably they are both in some important sense closer to the truth than an earlier . theory that could not explain how it worked. (I am specifically talking about cases where science has contributed to a technological advance of some kind.)
March 21 at 10:58am

Peter Fulmer
I don't know any of you, but can confortably say that I have been on FB for quite some time, and have never run across such an intense and intellectual conversation. Having not read Kuhn, I will not weigh in, but appreciate all of you for doing so.
March 23 at 9:54pm

Ryan Heerwagen
Its all about your social circle. You can find all sorts of intense and intellectual circles if you look on certain notes with intellectual themes, if you look at certain applications that have forums, and if you have friends who are argumentative and intellectual.
March 23 at 10:02pm

Jeffrey Soliva
Whoa. This is pretty fascinating.

Darren, do you have any other book recommendations that discuss myth of objectivity/neutrality in investigation, and "scientism" that unscientifically assumes there is no scientific need to establish the paradigm of antisupernatural bias... conveniently asking questions that leave God out of the equation... not ... Read Morebecause it was scientifically proven, but because it is not part of the question initially asked...

I'm relatively new to TAG (reference to Bahnsen) discussions, so this is all pretty fascinating to me.
March 25 at 1:49pm

Darren Hom
Sorry I haven't had time to get back to you guys on this yet! Here's an article by a physics professor who attended Dawkins' lecture that you will find interesting. I've attached a comment to it, which you can read by clicking the "Comment" button at the top left of the page. Briefly stated, I don't fully agree with Prof. Strauss' approach, though I am in alignment with his worldview in general.

http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=66846819390&h=N24NX&u=q0Di2&ref=mf
April 1 at 8:47am

Darren Hom
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs2qPeD2Jqc&NR=1
April 26 at 2:02pm

Ryan Heerwagen
Interesting youtube, I think my response to the problem she presents is that we do not really see our paradigm very well. Our paradigm is given, it is how we think the world works, and when people defy the expectations of our paradigm, we have difficulties understanding them. In the case of language barriers, both sides consciously recognize the ... Read Morelanguage difference, but the effort is to see if something can be communicated, like if another person is just *terrible* at the language and needs it given clearly(loud and slow), and it is probably in part an unconscious action.

In any case, talk about paradigms and background assumptions seems to fit into postmodern conceptions.
April 26 at 3:43pm

Still more comments from Facebook:

Darren Hom
Wow. Time to catch up!

Rebekah, do you think that Dawkins would base his sense of morality on the concept of self, perhaps self-interest or self-defined purpose? How do you think he would explain the difference between that and a Darwinian survival impulse?
April 26 at 8:42pm

Darren Hom
I'm not touching this conversation between Ryan and Ting, as I don't want to be at the computer for another two hours :), other than to say that one can be a Christian but espouse beliefs that are not consistent with his Christianity. That's what I would say Arminianism is.

and also that presuppositionalism doesn't attempt to disprove all other views one at a time. It rather does so by entire categories, as the blog entry I linked to before does:

http://godmadescience.xanga.com/604592120/calvinism---totally-irrelevant-to-real-life/

I'll let them talk the rest of it out. :)
April 26 at 8:47pm

Darren Hom
Thanks for commenting, Tim. I understand how someone might take the point of view you're espousing on science and progress toward truth. I'm not convinced, however, that Kuhn himself takes that view. Where do you see Kuhn talking this way in his writings?
April 26 at 8:49pm

Darren Hom
Peter, the level of response to this post shocked me too. I guess sticking the name 'Dawkins' in it boosted the response rate. It looks like we're both in the real estate business in Oklahoma City. Want to meet up sometime?
April 26 at 8:51pm

Darren Hom
Jeffrey, thanks for the question. My favorite books to start with are here:

http://godmadescience.xanga.com/452902736/good-books-and-mp3s-on-presuppositional-apologetics/

The materials by Bahnsen address your question most directly.

John Frame's Apologetics to the Glory of God does a very good job addressing the myth of neutrality. The second half of the book is, IMO, a bit too evidentialistic, but the book as a whole is very helpful.

http://www.amazon.com/Apologetics-Glory-God-John-Frame/dp/0875522432/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240797255&sr=8-1
April 26 at 8:55pm

Darren Hom
Ryan, I agree. We have to make a conscious effort to step outside of our paradigms and into other peoples' in order to communicate. This goes along with what we've been talking about in this thread: while each individual needs to step outside of his paradigm's concepts to communicate with others, the paradigms are still incompatible, and more than one cannot be consistently believed at the same time.
April 26 at 8:57pm

Rebekah Rogers
oy...ask me again in three weeks...my brain is fried from the paper I'm writing on Cicero...I probably won't be able to say anything coherent
April 26 at 8:58pm

The comments from Facebook keep going:

Ryan Heerwagen
No, it really doesn't. For one, a single individual cannot know all of the categories that one can invent or how they might change over time, so honestly, it does have to go view by view.

Secondly, the epistemology used by presuppositionalism is brain-crunchingly stupid, it basically just applies skepticism to EVERYTHING ELSE but the ... Read Morepresuppositionalist's own position. This can be seen with Vincent Cheung telling his apologists to keep on asking "why?".

Thirdly, the rebuttal you linked to is just lame. It is a set of statements about things that are still in dispute. The argument against free will also is rather flimsy, because the Arminian will counter that human existence is incomprehensible without it, a point that even Richard Dawkins has admitted to at one point. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOuovhfjF7o
April 26 at 9:03pm

Ryan Heerwagen
Not only that, but not knowing future human actions is not the same as not knowing future physical laws, so the link you give has already goofed in it's own exposition. Not only that, but not knowing the future is not the same as not being omniscient, because if omniscience is knowing the outcome of all true statements, and the future is ... Read Moreundetermined(ontologically different than the past), then an omniscient God wouldn't know the future.

In any case, the link you offer seems to outright reject the basis of study, as it claims that all things must be currently known, and that valid knowledge cannot allow for studies to continue, however, current methods are flawed simply because of the continual process of improvement. In any case, a fringe philosophy attacking mainstream philosophies as all broken already sets off a number of alarms, particularly given that atheist philosophers see presuppositionalism as sleight of hand, something that can shock, but not an intellectual threat.
April 26 at 9:09pm

Ryan Heerwagen
As for Tim's comment on Kuhn, this can be drawn from his own words, where he stated "I am not a Kuhnian", which wikipedia has and has a source for, but not one I can readily access, where it mentions that Kuhn did this to repudiate the extremely relativist interpretation of his work that some take on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn#
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn#The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

I would bet that Kuhn really ends up being more along the lines of a Pragmatist than a relativist, as the latter is usually taken as a contradictory position, while the former is respectable, and can fit within the idea of paradigms.
April 26 at 9:13pm

Ryan Heerwagen
In any case, right, I think that the more I hear about presuppositionalism, the less I respect it. I mean, it is just another form of foundationalism that just dislikes other foundations. The same with other apologetics that are allergic to being wrong, such as Plantinga's evo argument against naturalism.

Finally, to address the point you gave over to Rebekah, Dawkins isn't a philosopher, he is a man with an opinion, but he cannot answer most of the questions that philosophers put forward.

Atheist ethicists include Kantian moral rationalists that say that human reason dictates the morality of certain actions by it's nature. There are some utilitarians, but I do not know their meta-ethic. I think a man named Alonso Fyfe claims to have developed an ethical philosophy called "desire utilitarianism" that may become popular, I don't know the details though.
April 26 at 9:20pm

Darren Hom
Ryan, do you think categories are this way by nature? For example, if I categorize all swans as white or non-white, are there still categories I am unaware of that do not fit within these two?

Presuppositionalism says a worldview must be criticized using its own presuppositions. The claim is that atheism's presuppositions have self-referential problems and that Christianity does not. The criticism applies to both worldviews but generates different results.

Lots of things are still in dispute. This is one reason why they're worth talking about. How do you think one can construct an argument that is not subject to these weaknesses?
April 26 at 9:21pm

Ryan Heerwagen
In any case, I am not sure if theists often have a great answer either. The reason is the Euthyphro problem. Now, a theist might argue that ethics are not arbitrary because they are grounded in the deity's unchanging nature. But, just because the nature of God may not change does not mean that the ethics are less arbitrary. What then has to be proved is that God's morality is also necessarily what it is, if a theist cannot do that, they've already bitten one horn of the Euthyphro, or at least have an unknown, weakening the position from being exalted above another ethical theory.
April 26 at 9:23pm

Darren Hom
The statement you are making about omniscience seems to assume that there are certain physical laws which are unchanging. So in a world where the future cannot be known, these physical laws would remain constant.

To say that these laws remain constant (which not all physicists would agree with) is itself a statement about the future.

This philosophy does not reject the basis of study. The claim is that God's Word is the basis for study, and to some extent, the process of research has to be based on faith because not all of the factors are within our control. I trust that the future will be like the past because God is in control.
April 26 at 9:26pm

Ryan Heerwagen
Darren, the issue is that a presuppositional apologetic does not prove that God is necessary, it instead argues that other systems lack certain characteristics making them valid. The problem being that I have not heard of a presuppositional QED argument where all of the premises are undeniable. In fact, such an argument is impossible, because the presuppositional apologist does not know all things.

Christianity has it's own self-referential problems.

I think presuppositionalism actually would undermine itself if it's stringent requirements were generally applied to it.

If you are just referring to the TAG though, well, that has disputed premises to it.
April 26 at 9:27pm

Darren Hom
Yes, I have been saying that Kuhn is a pragmatist the entire time. I've read one of his responses to the relativistic interpretation of his work, but I don't remember him claiming that science moves closer toward truth. If you could direct me to the exact place he says this, that would be helpful.

Thanks for writing!
April 26 at 9:29pm

Ryan Heerwagen
Darren, the issue is that an unknown future does not mean that not all things are completely unknowable, only that significant portions of the future are unknowable. If God is constant, and if physics depends upon God, then the laws of physics are known, even if human actors are unknown. It's still sloppiness and a terrible argument.

Ok, and presuppositionalists aren't really adding new methods to epistemology, they are just attacking other epistemologies, based upon ontological concerns. It really adds nothing.
April 26 at 9:29pm

Ryan Heerwagen
Well... ok, Tim himself pointed to a quote, which actually is sufficient for his argument.

In any case, if he is REALLY a pragmatist means he has a different definition of truth, which would mean that science always progresses towards truth. Kuhn's framework is incomprehensible if one denies that science progresses towards a pragmatic truth, in fact, even Feyerabend's philosophy is incomprehensible without this assumption.
April 26 at 9:33pm

Darren Hom
A presuppositionalist would say that he is not subject to the Euthyphro dilemma but that other theists are. Why do you think he would say that?

Presuppositionalism doesn't have a purely deductive argument of the kind you are describing for its position. I would say, probably in agreement with you, that such arguments do not exist.

The issue is not whether such an argument exists, but whether the most basic presuppositions contradict themselves. Do you think that Christianity's presuppositions are self-contradictory?

Sure, it's possible to argue that the physical laws are known and unchanging but that individual events are not known. This is not a Christian conception of physical law IMO and has its own set of problems which probably should have been addressed directly. Thanks for pointing them out.

I agree that presuppositionalists aren't adding new methods to epistemology.
April 26 at 9:40pm

Darren Hom
Which quote did Tim point to?

In speaking of truth, I am using the word in the way in which Kuhn questions its use in _Structure_. Dave said that he disagrees with the way I am reading Kuhn. I replied by asking "In what way do you think truth should be defined that is consistent with these statements? x x x"

In doing this, I am not denying that there is a definition of truth that is consistent with Kuhn's pragmatism. I am, however, saying that this is not the definition which Kuhn himself is using in _Structure_, and it is also not a definition that is consistent with the way that Dawkins spoke in his lecture.... Read More

I should have been more clear about that. Thanks for pointing it out.
April 26 at 9:45pm

Ryan Heerwagen
A presuppositionalist, by saying that only shows that his own position is just special pleading, which is part of my case. The case I put forward is a common argument.

Well, right, but that's the reason why I accused it of not being able to prove what it must, because it has no deductive argument, one can guess it can do this, but one certainly cannot know that this is so using logic.

Many people accuse Christianity of having self-contradictory presuppositions. In fact, some accuse the trinity of being self-contradictory, others say that the incarnation leads to self-contradiction, others say that the Christian has to have a self-contradictory stance in order to affirm Christianity(for example special pleading usually undermines claims to honesty)
April 26 at 9:47pm

Ryan Heerwagen
Darren, your conception is Calvinism. The position that I was putting forward(choosing not to contest the free will foreknowledge argument, although a large number of philosophers are attempting this) would actually be open-theism. The early Christian response would have probably been simple foreknowledge, which is actually a self-contradictory position, with future positions attempting to formalize it and get rid of the contradictions.

Well, yeah, I know, they are acting as apologists. The issue is that if they are not adding value, but rather acting as ontological skeptics, then there is not much reason to take them seriously, particularly given that many philosophers do not think the ontological conclusion they derive is necessary. Philosopher Gene Witmer suggests that Platonism is sufficient to rebut their stance on knowledge.
April 26 at 9:49pm

Darren Hom
A presuppositionalist would say that even if he can't show that morality is defined by God's character using logical arguments, it is true because God says so and He is all-knowing. Upon questioning, he would turn around and ask, "What is wrong with this [Christian] set of presuppositions?"

I agree that a lot of people accuse Christianity of having self-contradictory presuppostions. Do you as an individual believe they are self-contradictory? You're well-educated and can evidently defend youself. If you think they are not self-contradictory, you have good reasons for doing so, and I don't have to defend them to you. :)
April 26 at 9:50pm

Ryan Heerwagen
Now, it could be argued that I am ignoring Calvin's efforts to show Calvinism was the belief of the Church fathers(something he did to some extent in The Bondage and Liberation of the Will) however, I think that assuming libertarian free will as a starting position does fine given that most churches uphold it(even tradition minded ones), given that... Read More most people across the world, even outside of Western cultures, believe in libertarian free will, even holding it to be essential for human nature, and things of that nature.

Not only that, but the idea that simple foreknowledge was the early church belief is something I have heard before, and taken as an argument for this self-contradictory position by an actual theologian, whose name I don't have on me at the time.
April 26 at 9:53pm

Ryan Heerwagen
Well, it's special pleading. I could just say that my God told me the same thing about HIS moral system. This ultimately proves nothing, as it just turns the debate onto the validity of your personal experience, and that can easily be considered invalid as there is no external evidence.

Ok, fine. I think the trinity is self-contradictory. If God ... Read Moreis a simple God and without parts, then the persons in God cannot be separate. However, these persons are separate as they are not the same person. Not only that, but if these persons have the same goals, and the same knowledge, then why call them separate? What makes them different people? However, if these people have different knowledge and/or different goals, then why call them part of God? Why not call it tritheism? I don't think this disproves a trinitarian conception, as I don't see major problems with internal contradictions, but how is the Trinity meaningfully existent, rather than Sabellianism, or Arianism, or other theologies?
April 26 at 10:00pm

Darren Hom
A presuppositionalist would then ask, "What presuppositions are present in your god's system of religion?"

So does the Trinity have problems with internal contradictions?
April 26 at 10:03pm

Ryan Heerwagen
I know, the other God argument seems lame, but it does work as a reductio ad absurdum, just as the island objection by Gaunillo could be taken as one.

However, going back to the issue of your experience of being told, here are the objections:
1) God told you so, does not mean that God couldn't lie to you. You have no way to show He didn't.
2) The fact that you being told is unknowable leads to an issue of which truths told are valid, as many people have mystical experiences, and 15% of the population has experienced some form of mild hallucination, with an extreme group killing their own children because they claimed God told them so.... Read More
3) A being whose existence is in question(which it would with an atheist) cannot be a witness, as being a witness requires existence be proved.
April 26 at 10:07pm

Darren Hom
It's not a reductio ad absurdum if the other system doesn't have the same presuppositions.

1) God cannot lie because of His character. This disproves other types of theism, but not Christianity.
2) If the being which told me these things can lie or deceive me due to its moral nature, this being is not the Christian God.
3) An atheist can question God as much as he wants to. His worldview doesn't give him the intellectual tools he needs to do so within his own worldview, and if he works within the Christian worldview, God is a given.... Read More

You're trying to show that there is no deductive argument that proves the existence of the Christian God. I agree with you.
April 26 at 10:11pm

Ryan Heerwagen
Sure it is, because the system has similar enough presuppositions to discredit that kind of argument. Not only that, but some of the presuppositionalist's presuppositions might be questioned.

1) How do you know? If it is because He told you, then that's mighty circular of you, and thus a bad argument.
2) Well, ok, but the Christian God's existence is in question, so... you've still proven nothing.
3) Well, ok, but God establishes nothing. If the only way to know anything is to know all things, then the Christian knows nothing, because the validity of the presupposition of God cannot be known to the Christian.... Read More

Ok, well, the issue is if you cannot establish that God exists through your apologetic, and you cannot create arguments for this God, then you provide no reason for this God to be believed.
April 26 at 10:19pm

Ryan Heerwagen
The presuppositionalist just asks questions, and that is why the presuppositionalist just is a matter of sleight of hand, as the presuppositionalist cannot really answer his own questions in a meaningful manner, he appeals to an external still unproven to deal with all problems, which is just special pleading of a sort.

Here's all I have to say: this God exists, and this God establishes scientific laws, logic, and a moral code, and a number of basic intuitions.

Umm... Darren, I already made my argument that the Trinity's conception of personhood is either false or it becomes meaningless. You can dispute the details, but I think we've both accepted the basis of the argument.
April 26 at 10:24pm

Darren Hom
If the system has different presuppostions, it's not a reductio ad absurdum. We're speaking of "the system" in a very abstract way. Which other system has the same presuppositions as Christianity? That would simply be a form of Christianity (though perhaps a problematic one), and this would be an in-house debate.

For #1 and #2, that's fine, as the goal was not to prove the existence of God. The goal was to show that the presuppositions of Christianity are not self-contradictory.

For #3, the underlying assumption is that knowledge of God has to be known through deductive reasoning. A non-Calvinist may have that problem, but what Calvinist would make that claim?... Read More

What reason can be provided? This is the only worldview that doesn't have self-referential problems. And the knowledge comes not through the type of pure deductive reasoning of which you speak, but through the aid of mediated general and special revelation.
April 26 at 10:26pm

Darren Hom
You're speaking to a Calvinist who claims that Calvinism is a part and parcel of self-consistent Christianity. I agree with many of the arguments you use and use them myself with evidential and non-Calvinistic apologists.
April 26 at 10:26pm

Darren Hom
By "meaningless," do you mean that there is no distinction between Trinitarianism and Arianism, for example? Or do you mean "practically meaningless"? Or something else?

If Trinitarianism is not self-contradictory, then why bring it up here?

All of us appeal to external unprovens (unproven by pure logical deduction). That is the point a presuppositionalist makes. Other external unprovens have self-referential presuppositional problems.

Do you want me to say more than this? I will do so by working within my worldview. If you want me to work outside of my worldview, I will say that I can't consistently do so because there would be internal contradictions.
April 26 at 10:31pm

Ryan Heerwagen
Well, the issue is how different the presuppositions are. Islands are different than Gods but Gaunillo's island is his reductio ad absurdum of Anselm's God.

The issue here is also that you aren't listing a number of presuppositions for Christianity either, or why these presuppositions are necessary. Why is the incarnation a necessary presupposition? Why is the trinity necessary? Why is the following of the Jewish people a necessary presupposition? Why is the time that the messiah came to earth a necessary presupposition? Why is Christian nature of morality necessary? The list goes on. And you basically have to say that all major Christian presuppositions are also necessary for human functioning.

Well, for 1 & 2, all you've done is shown that you have no valid foundation to claim you know something.

For 3, the underlying assumption is the presuppositionalist epistemology, which works like that to reject other systems.
April 26 at 10:33pm

Darren Hom
The worldviews need to be taken as a set. Presuppositionalists don't start with a small number of givens and derive an entire worldview from it. If that's what you're expecting, I'm sorry, but I can't deliver.

For #3, the question is which set of presuppositions is self-consistent? The goal is not to use the presuppositions to prove other things ... Read Moreand derive an entire worldview by pure logical deduction. The goal presuppositionalists have is to show that other systems have problems that make them unusable.
April 26 at 10:38pm

Ryan Heerwagen
Umm... not having a way to know that your God exists does seem a significant self-referential problem, as you reference God for all things, but you cannot prove that you are being lied to. As for "direct revelation", you have no evidence, how do you know that you can distinguish between that and drugs or insanity? You don't know, there is no foundation for that knowledge, it's just special pleading.

By meaningless, I mean that the Trinity is so confused that it explains nothing. Basically, that the Trinity has no real difference between it and Sabellianism or Arianism. Basically, here's how it goes: either these beings are persons and separate, or the definition of personhood does not allow for a real difference between this and Sabellianism.

Ok. That proves nothing, as you have to claim that your external given is better than others, or theoretical others.... Read More

Darren, I don't care about what you label your worldview. The issue is the apologetic is questionable.
April 26 at 10:40pm

Ryan Heerwagen
And by "Sabellianism or Arianism", I don't mean both at the same time, I mean different sides depending upon the translator, as I know that there are disputes on the interpretation of the trinity, between social and anti-social trinitarians. Also, tritheism is an acceptable conceptual substitute for "Arianism" for this point, as I just took a major position that is known for dividing the trinity and placed it out there.
April 26 at 10:42pm

Darren Hom
Again, Ryan, you are using a definition of knowledge that is inconsistent with my worldview. Not being able to know if God exists is indeed a problem. That is a problem that other worldviews have. If you think that Calvnism has internal problems, please critique it from a Calvinist point of view. That's what presuppositionalists do.

The Trinity may or may not explain anything, but it does not create logical problems for Christianity. That is the point I am making.

"Ok. That proves nothing, as you have to claim that your external given is better than others, or theoretical others."

I have already described how I would do this.
April 26 at 10:44pm

Ryan Heerwagen
Well, Darren, that set is all I need to make my point. As your argument is against my presuppositions, correct? If I argue that a simpler deity can handle all of my necessary presuppositions, then the presuppositionalist's argument fails.

The issue is that worldviews are always in flux, so they cannot be taken as "entirely created" because each ... Read Moreperson will have a different worldview by that standard. Instead, I am focusing upon necessary presuppositions, because your argument says that other beliefs have conceptual weaknesses. If I can just theoretically handle all of my foundations without your beliefs, then you've lost your case.
April 26 at 10:47pm

Darren Hom
Not necessarily. Your system, without the Trinity, is still going to be very similar to Christianity. It's simply an in-house debate now. The debate is not between an atheist and a Christian, but between two theists with similar worldviews.
April 26 at 10:50pm

Darren Hom
In your sample worldview, you have a God who doesn't lie, can't deceive you, and has provided you with revelation and a set of presuppositions similar enough to Christianity to show that the presuppositional argument doesn't work against it. Sounds like a form of Christianity to me. It may not contain the gospel in the "correct" form, but again, this is an in-house debate.

It sounds like we have a lot in common. :)
April 26 at 10:56pm

Ryan Heerwagen
Darren, Calvinists typically use logic. Logic is often considered within your worldview. Unless you have redefined logic to create Calvinist logic, then I can use logic to argue against any position that you hold. Unless I am making a logical error, then there is no problem, unless you want to admit to what I am ignoring.

Well, the issue is that ... Read Morethis does create logical problems for Christianity, because as a Calvinist, you are committed to the trinity. If the trinity is something one can commit to, then it has meaning. If the trinity has meaning, then it appears to have logical problems, unless you can clarify where I've slipped up through this process. If you refuse, then I have less reason to take your argument seriously.

The issue is that I am disputing the power of your argument. I mean, if it boils down to "our system is true 'cuz we said so", then your claim is relatively nonsensical, and most people would likely dismiss it.
April 26 at 10:57pm

The never-ending stream of comments from Facebook:

Darren Hom
The Trinity and the problem of universals are related. I would argue that if the Trinity has to have logical problems if it has meaning, the problem of universals will have similar problems. I prefer to define "meaning" differently such that the Trinity and the problem of universals both have meaning but are not fully comprehensible.

It seems to ... Read Moreme that if someone were to believe the hypothetical system you put forth, it would be for some reason other than "because we said so." It would be "because God said so" (even if our conception of God is not Trinitarian).
April 26 at 11:04pm

Darren Hom
If we've reached a point where we're now debating Calvinism and taking an honest, self-revealing God for granted, this is an in-house debate.
April 26 at 11:05pm

Ryan Heerwagen
Darren, here's the issue, I already listed a large number of theological doctrines that seem rejectable while maintaining a stable worldview, and a lot of them are important to Christianity. Christianity is not a word for "theism", it is a specific faith. Basically, if I can get past your apologetic by rejecting the cross, or Christ, or the Bible, then your apologetic fails.
April 26 at 11:10pm

Darren Hom
I think you've hit the nail on the head. This is where we are in disagreement. It's really a matter of definition. For me, an apologetic doesn't have to prove every single doctrine. It simply establishes the framework one needs to learn and grow doctrinally.

The presuppositional apologetic doesn't prove the cross or Christ. I think it can be used to show that some version of the Trinity is necessary, but not everyone thinks so.

If we try to push the apologetic too far, into realms it's not intended for, we run into problems.

We are in agreement here.

In practice, I use the apologetic to show people why my worldview doesn't have self-contradictions the way other worldviews do. I don't use it to prove all of my doctrines. If were to try to take it too far, it would fail.

We agree, right? :)
April 26 at 11:14pm

Ryan Heerwagen
But.... you haven't even established Christianity. You haven't made a good apologetic, in fact, your apologetic is as bad as Mr. Grey's apologetic in one of Van Til's works, as I only took the "other God argument" because it shares enough common presuppositions to be a reductio ad absurdum, as it shows that anything is permissive enough.

Well, I ... Read Moreknow it runs into problems, but this is the apologetic that rejects other apologetics for not standing on the Bible enough, and you tell me it only goes this far? I mean, you haven't proven that Christianity is the only self-consistent system, a claim made by many presuppositional apologists, including I think Paul Manata of triablogue.

Well... yes, it would fail, but the issue is that most other worldviews don't have big contradictions. They reject Christianity but they take certain epistemic issues as given, or they are pragmatic and they simply don't care. So... I don't see much here, unless you have a refutation of pragmatism.
April 26 at 11:25pm

Darren Hom
I think you're right in some of what you're saying. If I remember correctly, Van Til had a problem with trying to prove abstract notions of God. He particularly didn't like it because people would borrow assumptions from non-Christian worldviews in order to do their proofs. For example, Josh McDowell borrows assumptions from the Jesus Seminar to ... Read Moremake his historical argument.

What I'm advocating is different. Take my entire worldview as a set, including the Bible, the cross, and the Calvinism, and show me how it's self-contradictory. Sure, if you can't do that, I haven't shown deductively how Christianity is a self-consistent system. But my argument assumed the necessity of revelation from the beginning, and I made no compromises with other worldviews.
April 26 at 11:33pm

Darren Hom
If indeed an honest, self-revealing God is necessary to have a worldview which passes the presuppositional test, then other worldviews would have self-contradictory presuppositions. They may not be obvious because, as you say, usually people don't care about that kind of stuff. Pragmatism has internal problems that people don't really care about, ... Read Moreone of them being that people try to figure out the system by looking from the outside in but without the ability to see it from the outside in. I have no problem with Christian forms of pragmatism that tie truth and coventantal progress together.

The way I use presuppositionalism, it stays true to Scripture without being able to use pure logic to prove all my doctrines. Scripture is there for that purpose.

So it's limited in one sense because it acknowledges the limitations of deduction. It's unlimited in anther sense because God's revelation is not subject to these limitations.
April 26 at 11:37pm

Darren Hom
Greg Bahnsen's work analyzing worldviews is a good example of presuppositional thinking. He has a set of three philosophy courses where his views are laid out.

http://www.cmfnow.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=659
April 26 at 11:39pm

Ryan Heerwagen
Well, the issue is that "self-contradictoriness" or not really does not add a lot.

What outside? Pragmatism seeks what works and nothing more, it's measure of value is internal, and some people think it is a philosophy that is compatible with postmodernism. So, I really don't see what abstraction you can say that a pragmatist is holding onto, as it is about as anti-system as a person can get.
April 26 at 11:49pm

Darren Hom
"Pragmatism seeks what works and nothing more."

Is that statement true? Why or why not?

"Pragmatism successfully seeks what works and nothing more."... Read More

"What works is important. It has significance."

This is the beginning of a system.
April 26 at 11:52pm

Darren Hom
But regardless of what I've just said, you're right that pragmatists may not care much about self-contradiction because of their aversion to system. It doesn't invalidate what I've said, but it's a fact of life.
April 26 at 11:54pm

Ryan Heerwagen
Sure it is true. It works. Working is also the new definition of truth.

No, pragmatism does not say anything about success, it isn't a system that has definite conclusions, it isn't even a system, it is very anti-systematic. So by inserting "success", you are radically changing what pragmatism is. The second quote is basically a tautology, as "... Read Morewhat works" is basically something already taken as important, as pragmatism really doesn't posit a value system so much either, as it can be theistic, atheistic, egoist or altruist.

You are trying to make something so minimal as to be compatible with postmodernism into something you can deconstruct, and that is sort of hilarious. The very fact that this idea is compatible with postmodernism should say something.
April 27 at 12:02am

Ryan Heerwagen
And if you ask me how it works, I'll just ask you to show me that it doesn't. Pragmatism doesn't have to prove anything to any specific extent, as William James states:

"The philosopher’s logical tranquillity is thus in essence no other than the boor’s. They differ only as to the point at which each refuses to let further considerations upset the absoluteness of the data he assumes."

If I am a Pragmatist, I really am not beholden to a huge level of abstraction, it does nothing for me.
April 27 at 12:04am

Ryan Heerwagen
Well, the issue is that your apologetic demands a system to attack, if pragmatism is anti-systematic, then it undermines your apologetic's utility. As all of the questions of "what does theism add to our knowledge" really become important, and you haven't provided answers.
April 27 at 12:07am

Darren Hom
So if it's true, isn't truth an abstraction?

Kuhn is a pragmatist, and he talks about success and significance in a way that is not tautological.

But for a pragmatist for whom that is truly tautological, what is a tautology? Is it an abstraction? Does it involve the use of logic?

Can a pragmatist claim that his system is not self-contradictory and still retain his aversion to system?

Is post-modernism truly compatible with post-modernism? Is that a truth? Can it be shown to be true?
April 27 at 12:07am

Ryan Heerwagen
Depends on how one wants to conceptualize truth. If truth is what works, then what works might be reduceable to brain states.

Not all pragmatists are Kuhn though, and frankly, I would probably sooner use Richard Rorty for the direction I am going. Not only that, but frankly, even if one used non-tautological terminology, it wouldn't mean anything abstract necessarily, it just means that the terminology is useful.

Sure! If pragmatists are averse to systems, then why should they systematically be biased against systems? Not only that, but pragmatism isn't a system in the sense that most people use the term system, so I don't think your argument works against that.

Rorty calls himselve postmodern, Rorty calls himself pragmatism, Rorty seems respectable as far as I can tell. So, sure! Is there a reason I shouldn't think this so?
April 27 at 12:12am

Darren Hom
One of the arguments used by Bahnsen is that those who are anti-system cannot use language to articulate their positions. If I remember correctly, some post-modernists have also made similar claims about language.

In those situations, Bahnsen leaves them alone. Since they can't consistently articulate their positions and are unwilling to consider objections to their positions, they are unable to answer any objections a presuppositionalist would bring them anyway.

"What does theism add to our knowledge?"

I don't remember being asked this question before, and I apologize if you think it was ignored. I'm not sure what context you're asking this question in. Do you mean consistent Christian theism? If so, I would say that it gives us a framework in which we can think and do research consistently. The Bible contains a wealth of knowledge, as does general revelation.
April 27 at 12:15am

Darren Hom
If truth is equated with what works and is reduceable to brain states, then how is truth (or what works) measured? Now we run into the problems Kuhn points out, and we're involved in systems again.
April 27 at 12:17am

Ryan Heerwagen
Well, depends upon what you mean by articulate position. If you mean create a system? Well, no. But if you mean communicate, then yes, it is permissable to try, but it is always recognized that communication failure can happen at any time. In any case, a major issue with postmodernism is "how postmodern", because certain extremes of postmodernism ... Read Moreare rejected by some as so extreme as to be modernist.

Well, the issue is that presuppositionism is just objections, it isn't a positive system, so what's the point of it anyway?

I think I have indirectly. Well, no, it really provides very little workable knowledge, I mean, nothing actually changes by adopting this system, only the names of things. The only predictions made are either questionable(age of earth, origin of man) or rather minimal(man died on cross in middle east and came back to life for a short period of time).
April 27 at 12:22am

Ryan Heerwagen
Well, it isn't measured, for it's your brain. If you don't know what your brain is doing, then you are probably too confused for much help to be given anyway. I mean, I provided a tentative answer for your question, simply because thoughts(which are usually believed to relate to brain states) are often considered unrejectable, as seen with cogito ... Read Moreergo sum. Descartes proof of his existence is a matter of brain states. Also, brain and mind in the English language are interchangeable, so I could go for mental states if you think substance dualism is a lot better.
April 27 at 12:25am

Darren Hom
"Well, it isn't measured, for it's your brain."

Yes, for Cartesians, this would be true. For Freudians, it would not be.

We're still involved with the problem of either measuring those states or rejecting paradigms which say that those states need to be measured. This is Kuhn's world.
April 27 at 12:27am

Ryan Heerwagen
Well, no, Freudians don't measure the brain. They analyze it using a method. In any case, I am not beholden to determine what the ideal psychological doctrine is.

Or, we can side with Paul Feyerabend, and go whatever route seems best.

I already quoted William James here: "The philosopher’s logical tranquillity is thus in essence no other than the boor’s. They differ only as to the point at which each refuses to let further considerations upset the absoluteness of the data he assumes."

I don't have to identify a system or reject a system, I can just stop here and stop worrying. I can just go with an intuitive approach, while others might be more concerned with their psyches and look for psychological methods to keep them functioning. Once again, I am not beholden to a system, and all you are trying to do is debunk systems. A person can thus be a pragmatic atheist and still move forward, as your apologetic can do nothing against pragmatism, it adds nothing, as you've already stated.
April 27 at 12:35am

Darren Hom
So it doesn't matter if you're saying this because you feel like doing it with your mom?
April 27 at 12:40am

Ryan Heerwagen
Why should it? I mean, we are both where we are due to processes conscious and unconscious, many of them having nothing to do with the preservation of truth. I mean, the majority of self-proclaimed Christians grew up in Christian societies, and Christian-themed homes. Does location impact the abstract truth of a doctrine? If not, then why is it so ... Read Morecorrelated with belief? Either there is some non-truth seeking process involved with most of our beliefs, or God really loves some countries a lot more than others.

If we spent all of our time questioning our deeply embedded cultural biases, beliefs, and ideas though, we'd get nowhere and be half-mad by the end of it. We believe a LOT of things on grounds that others might consider flimsy or nonsensical. This is worsened by the pervasive psychological biases that psychologists note in the brain. It seems a wonder if a lot of things we believe would be true in the abstract sense, after all, past societies seem wrong on all things to us.
April 27 at 12:50am

Ryan Heerwagen
And to pre-empt the God likes certain groups of people argument, I will have to point out that this same non-truth seeking dynamic seems to hold across the globe to some extent. I mean, Christians are growing in some areas, but for the most part, most people stay what they were born into. I mean, I think liberal Christian philosopher John Hick described this as about 99% of people believing what the culture they were born into believed.
April 27 at 12:55am