On the futility of evidence-based apologetics

[gaara4158]

I agree with Matt that Hume is substantive, but I wouldn't say that Hume's views are the be-all-end-all of epistemological inquiry. And from what I've seen so far of the discussion in the PineCreek video alone, up and through the first hours and a half (...I'm at 1:30 now), there doesn't appear to be a 'perfect' epistemological agreement among the atheists therein.

Most likely, our finding a debate that goes ultra-deeply into epistemology will be a very rare occurrence. The reason why is because it would take more time that the typical debate time will allow, and such a level of discussion would more or less require an entire course to even venture through just to become familiar with the various positions, explanations, and discussions involving conflicting issues among the various positions.

As for your not having 'heard' what I've shared, that probably because the field of Philosophical Hermeneutics is a relatively 'newer' position in the ongoing discussion ...

Yes, and that shortcoming in depth likely won't be put to an end any time soon since there is some level of political drive pushing each of the respective epistemic polarities between the Atheists/Skeptics on one side and the more Fundamentalistic Christian view of Apologetics on the other other side.

I've attempted to find either a free video or free audio-book that treats this 'comprehensively,' I'm still looking. On my part, I'll just say that my position isn't drawn strictly from 'one source' but is rather a conglomeration of various sources that I've found, contemplated, and drawn together through the years. But, I'll keep looking. As an alternative, I probably could offer you various individual video sources, but you'd have to understand that this avenue of exploration comes in 'pieces,' some of which may be kind of dry in places.

I thought it was interesting how PineCreek admitted that he thought part of the problem is that there the different assumptions on each side seem to be due to different worldviews, a comment that ties into the thrust of what you've said in your OP.

So, at this point, I'm still working on getting through the video. Have you had any thoughts on all of this over the past day or two that have made you question further the epistemological positions presented in the PineCreek video (even that of Matt Dillahunty)?

For now I just can’t find any reason to take seriously the types of propositions that either can’t be tested or aren’t required to be taken for granted in order to function as a human being. So when theists bring up the fact that things like prayer can’t be tested as an objection to the Hume-ian epistemology I favor, I take it as a knock against prayer, not a knock against Hume. So why should I believe anything beyond the pragmatically required and the testable?

 

[Tone]

For now I just can’t find any reason to take seriously the types of propositions that either can’t be tested or aren’t required to be taken for granted in order to function as a human being. So when theists bring up the fact that things like prayer can’t be tested as an objection to the Hume-ian epistemology I favor, I take it as a knock against prayer, not a knock against Hume. So why should I believe anything beyond the pragmatically required and the testable?

But, don't you believe that humanity, as a whole, is gradually moving towards the ability to test all things...I mean, how long have we been able to test for the existence of atoms? Before this ability, wasn't it true that the concept of atoms was untested and taken for granted, and haven't there been technological advances all along the way? I believe that everything (prayer, teleportation, resurrection, etc...) can be tested, it's just a matter of figuring out how, and accepting the methodology.

 

[gaara4158]

But, don't you believe that humanity, as a whole, is gradually moving towards the ability to test all things...I mean, how long have we been able to test for the existence of atoms? Before this ability, wasn't it true that the concept of atoms was untested and taken for granted, and haven't there been technological advances all along the way? I believe that everything (prayer, teleportation, resurrection, etc...) can be tested, it's just a matter of figuring out how, and accepting the methodology.

Well, there are certain claims that aren’t falsifiable, meaning any conceivable result from any conceivable test for something’s existence could never be conclusively considered “negative.” I consider prayer to be among these. So what I’d really like to know is what other than falsifiability can I use to determine whether a claim is true or not?

 

[Tone]

Well, there are certain claims that aren’t falsifiable, meaning any conceivable result from any conceivable test for something’s existence could never be conclusively considered “negative.” I consider prayer to be among these. So what I’d really like to know is what other than falsifiability can I use to determine whether a claim is true or not?

What is falsifiability? - Definition from WhatIs.com

Hmmm...give me some time...

*We'll figure this out today, ha ha ha.

 

[Tone]

So, you're saying that you could imagine us coming up with a way to test prayer, yet, you can also imagine a test that would prove the concept of prayer false?

What is an example?

*"So then "we can test it in a deeper way."

 

[Tone]

So,this guy in the video says that a theory can be falsifiable in principle (thought), yet, be true in reality...

Ohhh, so you're saying that you can't imagine anything that would prove prayer as being true, so therefore, you can't come up with something that would prove it false?

Well wouldn't it be as simple as changing your view as shown below:

I consider prayer to be among these. So what I’d really like to know is what other than falsifiability can I use to determine whether a claim is true or not?

(Emphasis mine)

Specifically, instead of considering prayer unfalsifiable, couldn't you consider it falsifiable?

To accomplish this, you could accept the Bible as evidence for the existence of prayer.

 

[Tone]

How is the scientific method falsifiable? I'm not saying it is/isn't just wondering how.

 

[Tone]

Oh, falsifiability is being able to imagine a test that could prove something to be false...

And usually,it is because they don't exist in space and time...?

 

[Tone]

The guy in the video says, "There are unfalsifiable claims that we're justified in believing.There are unfalsifiable forms of knowledge."

*He then gives the idea of consciousness as an example.

 

[Tone]

He also says, "Every possible object either exists or it doesn't."

 

[gaara4158]

So,this guy in the video says that a theory can be falsifiable in principle (thought), yet, be true in reality...

Ohhh, so you're saying that you can't imagine anything that would prove prayer as being true, so therefore, you can't come up with something that would prove it false?

Well wouldn't it be as simple as changing your view as shown below:

(Emphasis mine)

Specifically, instead of considering prayer unfalsifiable, couldn't you consider it falsifiable?

To accomplish this, you could accept the Bible as evidence for the existence of prayer.

How would you falsify the efficacy of prayer? If I pray for rain, and it rains, you might tell me that’s evidence that God heard and granted my prayer. If I pray for rain and it doesn’t rain, you might tell me that God heard but denied my request for his own mysterious reasons. Whatever happens, you still get to conclude that God heard my prayer. This is what I mean when I say something is unfalsifiable. All results can be interpreted as positive.

 

[gaara4158]

The guy in the video says, "There are unfalsifiable claims that we're justified in believing.There are unfalsifiable forms of knowledge."

*He then gives the idea of consciousness as an example.

Yes, things like consciousness are among the necessary assumptions we make in order to function.

 

[Tone]

He also says "...that observation presupposes space, so one cannot prove that space exists through observation."

Can't we say the same for the existence of a Creator?:

As in, the creation presupposes the Creator, so one cannot prove that He exists through the creation.

This may be true in the sense that you can't prove Geppetto's existence through Pinocchio, because the carpenter is a real live human being (within the story) of an entirely different order than the wooden puppet. But, you can certainly catch glimpses as to the character/personality of Geppetto by observing how Pinocchio is crafted...it speaks of something of the master rather than nothing. But, of course, you won't know the entirety of the creator through the creation. But, a whole lot more may be revealed if consciousness is gained and thereby a way of communication is opened up.

 

[gaara4158]

How is the scientific method falsifiable? I'm not saying it is/isn't just wondering how.

Scientific methodology isn’t a statement in itself to be evaluated as true or false. It is a method by which we test falsifiable statements.

 

[gaara4158]

He also says "...that observation presupposes space, so one cannot prove that space exists through observation."

Can't we say the same for the existence of a Creator?:

As in, the creation presupposes the Creator, so one cannot prove that He exists through the creation.

This may be true in the sense that you can't prove Geppetto's existence through Pinocchio, because the carpenter is a real live human being (within the story) of an entirely different order than the wooden puppet. But, you can certainly catch glimpses as to the character/personality of Geppetto by observing how Pinocchio is crafted...it speaks of something of the master rather than nothing. But, of course, you won't know the entirety of the creator through the creation. But, a whole lot more may be revealed if consciousness is gained and thereby a way of communication is opened up.

By calling all of existence “creation” you are smuggling in the need for a creator, linguistically. Existence itself does not presuppose a creator.

 

[Tone]

You mentioned Hume, the next video that played (

) says "Hume's said induction was a 'psychological habit' that had no rationally justified foundation." and goes on to say "This meant that science had no rational foundation, according to Hume."

 

[Tone]

How would you falsify the efficacy of prayer? If I pray for rain, and it rains, you might tell me that’s evidence that God heard and granted my prayer. If I pray for rain and it doesn’t rain, you might tell me that God heard but denied my request for his own mysterious reasons. Whatever happens, you still get to conclude that God heard my prayer. This is what I mean when I say something is unfalsifiable. All results can be interpreted as positive.

In the second video, the guy says that Popper said that we "Impose a pattern on the world.", so we would have to use many many people over time to compare, which we have the testimony of the Bible, as well as, the testimony of thousands (millions) of people over a lengthy period of time, that show correspondence.

 

[gaara4158]

In the second video, the guy says that Popper said that we "Impose a pattern on the world.", so we would have to use many many people over time to compare, which we have the testimony of the Bible, as well as, the testimony of thousands (millions) of people over a lengthy period of time, that show correspondence.

Right, but my point is that *anything* can be considered correspondence, which makes its appearance meaningless. What kind of result would indicate that God isn’t hearing people’s prayers?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

For now I just can’t find any reason to take seriously the types of propositions that either can’t be tested or aren’t required to be taken for granted in order to function as a human being. So when theists bring up the fact that things like prayer can’t be tested as an objection to the Hume-ian epistemology I favor, I take it as a knock against prayer, not a knock against Hume. So why should I believe anything beyond the pragmatically required and the testable?

Alright, then if you're going to decide to continue to run in the rut of Pragmatism, then you can do so, but just realize that you'll only be doing so via your own personal, subjectively inclined aesthetic choice(s). Choosing to continue on this epistemological [knowledge] (or metaphysical [truth]) path also won't imply that you're somehow expressing 'more' epistemological virtue than me or anyone else or that you're handling Christianity in a way that is truer to biblically informed epistemological expectations than those who hold different, non-pragmatist positions.

So, if that's where you want to end the discussion in following your OP, then we can do so. I'm still planning on finishing the PineCreek video, but if you feel you're done here, then we can be done.

 

[gaara4158]

Alright, then if you're going to decide to continue to run in the rut of Pragmatism, then you can do so, but just realize that you'll only be doing so via your own personal, subjectively inclined aesthetic choice(s). Choosing to continue on this epistemological [knowledge] (or metaphysical [truth]) path also won't imply that you're somehow expressing 'more' epistemological virtue than me or anyone else or that you're handling Christianity in a way that is truer to biblically informed epistemological expectations than those who hold different, non-pragmatist positions.

So, if that's where you want to end the discussion in following your OP, then we can do so. I'm still planning on finishing the PineCreek video, but if you feel you're done here, then we can be done.

It’s not so much that I prefer the rut I’m running in, it’s just psychologically very difficult for me to even consider anything else. I wouldn’t be so bold as to say I’m being more epistemically virtuous this way, I’m just being honest. If there’s nowhere to go from here, that’s a shame, because the other things you hinted at seemed intriguing. We can pick the PineCreek video back up whenever you’re ready.