Question for presups...

[cvanwey]

It happens quite often on here. No need to apologize just wanted you to be aware.


The difference here is that I agree with the Scientific method and it is usually is without bias but there have been times when that was not the case. That being said, I love Science and feel it is the best way to learn about our world.

Unfortunately, I think you are somewhat biased against Theology.

My point was to demonstrate the 'general' methodology between the two modalities (i.e.) 'presups' (vs) science. Of course caveats may exist on either side.

In using intellectual honesty, read Genesis for example, and tell me how presupposition does NOT play perfectly into my prior general definitions?

 

[Oncedeceived]

My point was to demonstrate the 'general' methodology between the two modalities (i.e.) 'presups' (vs) science. Of course caveats may exist on either side.

In using intellectual honesty, read Genesis for example, and tell me how presupposition does NOT play perfectly into my prior general definitions?

Let me explain why I think you are bias towards theology; you have said that you think Christians read the Bible believe it is true and act accordingly. In reality, it isn't until a Christian has God reveal Himself to them that they begin to look at the Bible as Truth.

 

[cvanwey]

Let me explain why I think you are bias towards theology; you have said that you think Christians read the Bible believe it is true and act accordingly. In reality, it isn't until a Christian has God reveal Himself to them that they begin to look at the Bible as Truth.

I disagree. It is indoctrination which is the primary epicenter for many. Very few, from the over all percentage, grew up as an atheist, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, (read the Bible or have an encounter - like Sal of Damascus), then become a believer. Yes, again, caveats do exist

Indoctrination would arguably be the clear winner, which drives the 'presupposition' for many.

If I had a nickel for every time I heard someone attest that, 'I was raised in Christianity, but never followed it, it was not until I revisited it later, that I realized....'

Meaning, the presupposition, or initial exposure, was the igniting later driving force. Or, do you instead find it a sheer coincidence that world religions appear so distinctively segregated by geographics?

https://www.google.com/search?q=wor...AUICigB&biw=1366&bih=654#imgrc=dFrQaB2GxAR8sM:

Then ask yourself, does such 'belief' reign equally true for math, science, and general history?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I rarely get into this discussion but will make an exception. The whole point is that the non-Christian by necessity borrows from the Christian worldview to justify knowledge claims in a sense which are anything more than relative, and this has to do with autonomy and Theonomy, but so few seem to truly grasp the issues and rather just wallow in misconceptions and deception of their presuppositions. One of the most basic questions of philosophy is framed something like; what is the ultimate reality in the universe? The humanist claims that man is, the Christian claims that God is. There is a world of difference between the two claims. If man is the ultimate interpreter of the universe, all interpretation leading to knowledge is autonomous and therefore relative, and can be summed up by philosopher René Descartes in the famous statement; "I think therefore I am". In this scenario, certainty of knowledge cannot be justified in an objective sense. If God is the ultimate interpreter of the universe, the God of Christianity, existing outside of the Christian, and revealing Himself to man and as the Creator of everything, knows everything exhaustively, is the justification for knowledge that is anything but relative to the person. Now I await the incoming ridicule and mockery in the spirit of our age especially evident in politics.

The thing is though....
I don't actually know of a single atheist who claims to have knowledge that can be qualified as "objective ultimate Truth", capital T.

Even in science, it is said that "knowledge is tentative".

So, from my perspective, this is a non-issue for me. It's like trying to solve a "problem" that I don't consider to be a problem at all.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's just it, it cannot be solved assuming humanism is true. Where the Christian worldview shines so far as knowledge goes is we have the Scriptures, it's not a bare theism or simply assuming a higher power or a god, it assuming a God that has revealed Himself in Scriptures which inform man about God and the nature of man, and provides a starting point or axiom outside of self for all knowledge, including knowledge acquired through sense perception which rests on predication. Christianity can account for both the natural and the supernatural or unexplained out of the ordinary phenomena. The natural order assumes regularity, stability, predictability within the universe, and not the sort of irregularity, instability, and randomness one might expect assuming there is no immutable sovereign orderer governing the universe. It's not that the non-Christian does not know things or cannot interpret things, the issue is justification for that true interpretation, for having knowledge which is outside of self and universally true, including conceptual knowledge like mathematics for example.

His point is that no matter how God supposedly communicates his "perfect" knowledge to humans - humans would still need to recieve that input and process it using their flawed reasoning and senses. Be it through telepathy, reading scripture, retelling stories, miraculous appearances,....

It doesn't matter. It will still have to be processed by our "flawed" reasoning.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I beg to differ, consciousnesses, self-awareness with a capacity to reason and make decisions accordingly are unique traits to humans.

Hate to break it to you, but... not uniquely human traits.

At what point did matter become aware that the matter is matter? How is it even possible through natural selection?

Brain development.

God is the point, He created self-aware sentient beings capable of reasoning and making decisions.

That's just your religious doctrine. Believed on faith.

Your view lacks explanatory power and shows its deficiency for lack of answers to important questions pertaining to origins.

1. lack of answers doesn't necessarily show deficiency of methodology or starting point. If that were true, science would have been discarded long ago. Getting answers to questions, especially hard questions, usually takes quite some time.

2. merely stating religious doctrines, doesn't have any explanatory power at all as it doesn't explain anything. It just asserts.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I disagree. It is indoctrination which is the primary epicenter for many. Very few, from the over all percentage, grew up as an atheist, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, (read the Bible or have an encounter - like Sal of Damascus), then become a believer. Yes, again, caveats do exist

Indoctrination would arguably be the clear winner, which drives the 'presupposition' for many.

If I had a nickel for every time I heard someone attest that, 'I was raised in Christianity, but never followed it, it was not until I revisited it later, that I realized....'

Meaning, the presupposition, or initial exposure, was the igniting later driving force. Or, do you instead find it a sheer coincidence that world religions appear so distinctively segregated by geographics?

https://www.google.com/search?q=wor...AUICigB&biw=1366&bih=654#imgrc=dFrQaB2GxAR8sM:

Then ask yourself, does such 'belief' reign equally true for math, science, and general history?

I believe that a Christian home has very much to do with being a driving force for many, I wasn't raised in one but I know that others were. What I find very interesting is how so many in places where people are killed for becoming or being Christian (in geographic areas of other religions)that there is a rise in Christianity. I know that in China for instance there is a strong Christian presence taking hold.

Science is very secular in disposition. If someone is a Christian and is in Science, many other scientists find fault in their work. For instance, there are scientists that have presented views that might not be in direct accordance with evolution and the scientists are labeled creationists even if they are not creationists. So there is a secular bias in science.

 

[cvanwey]

I believe that a Christian home has very much to do with being a driving force for many, I wasn't raised in one but I know that others were. What I find very interesting is how so many in places where people are killed for becoming or being Christian (in geographic areas of other religions)that there is a rise in Christianity. I know that in China for instance there is a strong Christian presence taking hold.

I feel you may have missed my point... When looking at a 'world religion map', belief in something which appears to be primarily delegated upon what the person was raised in. Meaning, the world religion seems to be distinctively separated. It does not matter that the Americas is predominantly 'Christian' and Asia is predominantly another. My entire point, was to demonstrate that where they were born most notably demonstrates one's belief structure. When compared to math, science, and history, (which are also viewed as 'objective truth', as religion is believed to be), you do not see a clear and distinctive divided 'belief system' - (separated by region). You instead see a very scattered and evenly distributed pattern of conclusion, which appears more universal and unbiased.

On a side note, based upon your observation above, in regards to 'rise in Christianity', such a finding below would carry some value or credence:

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur...hUKEwiu4MWv6fDcAhVBRK0KHY-hDvoQ9QEwAHoECAsQBg

It does not matter if/when China becomes 100% 'Christian' in 50 years. My point is belief is divided, based upon the indoctrination of the region at that current point in time. If the country is Muslim, the majority will believe like a Muslim, etc... Hence, indoctrination is the 'driving force', or the presupposition.

Science is very secular in disposition. If someone is a Christian and is in Science, many other scientists find fault in their work. For instance, there are scientists that have presented views that might not be in direct accordance with evolution and the scientists are labeled creationists even if they are not creationists. So there is a secular bias in science.

Now who is painting with a broad brush? How is this even possible with biology, astronomy, chemistry, zoology, botany, geology, meteorology, etc....?

Even if what you stated above was entirely true, and I'm assuming you want to focus on evolutionary biology specifically, based upon your response, all the 'Christian' would need to do is present their evidence for peer review, in an attempt to dismantle the current established scientific theory.

Are you 'assuming' that the entire scientific community holds some type of dogma, like that of the many opposing religions hold?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I feel you may have missed my point... When looking at a 'world religion map', belief in something which appears to be primarily delegated upon what the person was raised in. Meaning, the world religion seems to be distinctively separated. It does not matter that the Americas is predominantly 'Christian' and Asia is predominantly another. My entire point, was to demonstrate that where they were born most notably demonstrates one's belief structure. When compared to math, science, and history, (which are also viewed as 'objective truth', as religion is believed to be), you do not see a clear and distinctive divided 'belief system' - (separated by region). You instead see a very scattered and evenly distributed pattern of conclusion, which appears more universal and unbiased.

I get your point, and I agreed that geographic area is a driving force. I don't think that science is ever considered objective truth, do you?

On a side note, based upon your observation above, in regards to 'rise in Christianity', such a finding below would carry some value or credence:

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur...hUKEwiu4MWv6fDcAhVBRK0KHY-hDvoQ9QEwAHoECAsQBg

There are many factors that make this up, for one, the birth rate of Muslims. I also don't believe that when that was figured that certain other factors would come into play in the future years. But again, not important to our discussion.

It does not matter if/when China becomes 100% 'Christian' in 50 years. My point is belief is divided, based upon the indoctrination of the region at that current point in time. If the country is Muslim, the majority will believe like a Muslim, etc... Hence, indoctrination is the 'driving force', or the presupposition.

Did you forget what I said about agreeing that geographical area was a driving force?

Now who is painting with a broad brush? How is this even possible with biology, astronomy, chemistry, zoology, botany, geology, meteorology, etc....?

Even if what you stated above was entirely true, and I'm assuming you want to focus on evolutionary biology specifically, based upon your response, all the 'Christian' would need to do is present their evidence for peer review, in an attempt to dismantle the current established scientific theory.

Are you 'assuming' that the entire scientific community holds some type of dogma, like that of the many opposing religions hold?

I think scientific methodology is the best method known to limit presupposition and individual bias. I don't believe that there will be anyway to clear out a personal bias or presupposition from some people even in Science. For instance take Richard Dawkins, he is very bias and Lawrence Krauss is another that comes to mind. Both of these men show how it is possible in Biology and Physics.

 

[cvanwey]

I get your point, and I agreed that geographic area is a driving force. I don't think that science is ever considered objective truth, do you?

Of course not, and neither does science.

There are many factors that make this up, for one, the birth rate of Muslims. I also don't believe that when that was figured that certain other factors would come into play in the future years. But again, not important to our discussion.

My point was to demonstrate that rising belief has absolutely no relevancy, in any capacity, to truth - (as demonstrated from the link)

I think scientific methodology is the best method known to limit presupposition and individual bias. I don't believe that there will be anyway to clear out a personal bias or presupposition from some people even in Science. For instance take Richard Dawkins, he is very bias and Lawrence Krauss is another that comes to mind. Both of these men show how it is possible in Biology and Physics.

Of course these two individuals will razz and poke at specific theists, if very specific claims are asserted in opposition to their crafts respectively. These two specific public figures receive pay to debate theists (just like William Craig and others). Most scientists do not. However, go up to practically any fundamental Christian and ask them what they think of evolutionary biology And then also ask them for the evidence to support why they completely 'reject' the scientific theory. Then contrast such a topic with gravitational theory, germ theory, cell theory, and ask why they 'accept' such scientific theories. It's safe to assume the catalyst for 'rejecting' evolution has to do directly with it's implications and opposition to Genesis specifically - (to retain their sacred belief system in spite of realized later discovery). In such a case, Genesis is their presupposition, in which they will defend, at all costs, til death, no matter what

In contrast, demonstrate peer reviewed evidence to support the antithesis to evolution, and you immediately have the next Nobel prize.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Of course not, and neither does science.

Well Science doesn't 'think' anything.

My point was to demonstrate that rising belief has absolutely no relevancy, in any capacity, to truth - (as demonstrated from the link)

Unless it does...

Of course these two individuals will razz and poke at specific theists, if very specific claims are asserted in opposition to their crafts respectively. These two specific public figures receive pay to debate theists (just like William Craig and others). Most scientists do not.

It is more than poking at specific theists in both cases, and I would agree most scientists do not.

However, go up to practically any fundamental Christian and ask them what they think of evolutionary biology And then also ask them for the evidence to support why they completely 'reject' the scientific theory. Then contrast such a topic with gravitational theory, germ theory, cell theory, and ask why they 'accept' such scientific theories. It's safe to assume the catalyst for 'rejecting' evolution has to do directly with it's implications and opposition to Genesis specifically - (to retain their sacred belief system in spite of realized later discovery). In such a case, Genesis is their presupposition, in which they will defend, at all costs, til death, no matter what

Again, not all Christians view evolution as defined as a problem and many feel Genesis has evidence to support it.

In contrast, demonstrate peer reviewed evidence to support the antithesis to evolution, and you immediately have the next Nobel prize.

Perhaps.

 

[devolved]

Good insight. I did a bit of looking around for other articulations of this position. My tentative conclusion is that he was taking a similar line as Sye Tenbrugencate and really just trying to stump me rather than worrying about the implications for his own position.

I'd say have your friend explain to you semantic difference between knowledge and belief and define the terms first. And then make sure that they are are not switching that meaning halfway through the argument.

In fact. A good way to do that... Simply ask then to agree never use the actual words, but substitute a phrase for that word in the argument. So, just say that for clarity you would like yo instead use the definition phrase in place of the word when they invoke that word.

Presup argument then devolves to absurdity and doesn't work. It only works when the contextual meaning of "knowledge" shifts to say something different than what the term means. Hence you are answering one question about belief and they then take that and package it with "you don't know and I do"... while it's still a belief.

If their definition of knowledge invokes God as a presupposition... Then force them to use that phrase when they ask you questions. It becomes rather absurd fairly fast, and most people should be feeling some degree of internal dissonance while arguing in that manner.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'd say have your friend explain to you semantic difference between knowledge and belief and define the terms first. And then make sure that they are are not switching that meaning halfway through the argument.

In fact. A good way to do that... Simply ask then to agree never use the actual words, but substitute a phrase for that word in the argument. So, just say that for clarity you would like yo instead use the definition phrase in place of the word when they invoke that word.

Presup argument then devolves to absurdity and doesn't work. It only works when the contextual meaning of "knowledge" shifts to say something different than what the term means. Hence you are answering one question about belief and they then take that and package it with "you don't know and I do"... while it's still a belief.

If their definition of knowledge invokes God as a presupposition... Then force them to use that phrase when they ask you questions. It becomes rather absurd fairly fast, and most people should be feeling some degree of internal dissonance while arguing in that manner.

I'd be interested in your definition of knowledge and belief.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'd be interested in your definition of knowledge and belief.

Knowledge is demonstrable. Mere belief isn't.

I know you didn't ask me. But that's my take on it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Knowledge is demonstrable. Mere belief isn't.

I know you didn't ask me. But that's my take on it.

I would like to know from devolved, but you are welcome to as well. How is knowledge demonstrable in your estimation.

 

[devolved]

I'd be interested in your definition of knowledge and belief.

Knowledge is a demonstrably (justified) true belief. Such demonstration can be factual, or in a scope of certain nominal declarations that assign known labels to consistent events and processes.

A belief is a conjecture that may or may not be true. If a belief is demonstrated to be true, it becomes (shifts into the category of) knowledge. If knowledge is shown to be untrue, it becomes a false belief.

Beliefs are of lesser certainty than knowledge. Knowledge by definition can't be false. Beliefs can be false.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Knowledge is a demonstrably (justified) true belief. Such demonstration can be factual, or in a scope of certain nominal declarations that assign known labels to consistent events and processes.

Knowledge is belief that can be justified...how? How does knowledge get justified?

A belief is a conjecture that may or may not be true. If a belief is demonstrated to be true, it becomes (shifts into the category of) knowledge. If knowledge is shown to be untrue, it becomes a false belief.

Beliefs are of lesser certainty than knowledge. Knowledge by definition can't be false. Beliefs can be false.

Given this definition, all the knowledge we have of a cell is just a belief because can't cure cancer for instance? If knowledge can't be false, why is it that we have all kinds of 'knowledge' but we can't be sure we have all knowledge of anything? If we can't be sure we attain all of the knowledge of something how could we know if it were 'true knowledge' rather than just a belief?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

The thing is though....
I don't actually know of a single atheist who claims to have knowledge that can be qualified as "objective ultimate Truth", capital T.

Even in science, it is said that "knowledge is tentative".

So, from my perspective, this is a non-issue for me. It's like trying to solve a "problem" that I don't consider to be a problem at all.

Sure downplay the integrity of knowledge, of knowing truth in a way that is not relative. But actually, every human being that assumes meaningful communication with another human being, assumes laws of logic which are necessarily objective truth with a capital "T". Blow it off as a non-issue, but apathy towards truth does not make it any less relevant to reality. That "knowledge is tentative" not a problem is a matter of convenience. For when a Christian who happens to be a Scientist or knowledgeable in the Sciences, does not agree with mainstream Science, "knowledge is tentative" and no atheist claims to have knowledge that can be qualified as objective truth, suddenly the apathy goes missing in action, as does the rest of what you claim.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

His point is that no matter how God supposedly communicates his "perfect" knowledge to humans - humans would still need to recieve that input and process it using their flawed reasoning and senses. Be it through telepathy, reading scripture, retelling stories, miraculous appearances,....

It doesn't matter. It will still have to be processed by our "flawed" reasoning.

So you assume a supernatural God that communicates, and then assume natural methodology in receiving revelation and inscribing it to natural materials. That's not how it works, assuming a Christian worldview and bringing elements from a non-Christian worldview into it to argue against it. I recommend reading about the different Christian "theories" of inspiration and illumination, because a sovereign God that wants to communicate His message to people, can surely ensure that His intended message is inscribed as He intends, as He wills. In other words, the God of Christianity, far surpasses the flaws of humans, flaws in reasoning and senses of His creatures are a non-issue for Him. So yes, it does matter.

 

[devolved]

Knowledge is belief that can be justified...how? How does knowledge get justified?

In epistemology, justification is a process of removeing doubt.

We don't have to remove all doubt to claim knowledge. We can provisionally grant certain claims the "knowledge" status, given that these are more certain than uncertain.

That's what science is in certain context of examination and systematic approach to unknown. Sciencia literally means knowledge.

If knowledge can't be false, why is it that we have all kinds of 'knowledge' but we can't be sure we have all knowledge of anything? If we can't be sure we attain all of the knowledge of something how could we know if it were 'true knowledge' rather than just a belief?

Well some things we nominally define so these are nominally axiomatic. For example, I can say that apple is a fruit based on how we define fruit and based on how we define apple.

Some thing we know procedurally. I know how to change breaks on my car, and I can demonstrate that knowledge. I know how to walk, and I know how to type and use this forum. If you have doubts about that... We should not be having this conversation.

Some knowledge is provisional based on context in which it is defined. We know that water boils at 100 celcius in context that we consistently repeat the experiment. Thus we can say that in the same context we know that boiling point will not be a 1000 celcius for water.

We don't have to know everything about water to know that fact.

I hope you get the point.

Likewise, knowledge is not a semantically standalone concept. It's a network of coherent concepts that resides in your brain or some memetic form. For you to know what an apple is there are a web of prerequisites to make that concept coherent.