Randi shows how to handle Hovind types.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-11-2013, 02:04 AM
RE: Randi shows how to handle Hovind types.
Yabut, how can you be absolutely sure that an absolute rock exists?

Dodgy

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 02:09 AM
RE: Randi shows how to handle Hovind types.
(19-11-2013 02:04 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Yabut, how can you be absolutely sure that an absolute rock exists?

Dodgy

Because his god is fooling us into believing the rock exists... Angel

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
19-11-2013, 02:51 AM
RE: Randi shows how to handle Hovind types.
(18-11-2013 11:56 PM)Raptor Jesus Wrote:  These guys are just vultures. I think it's funny that they posted this, because Randi makes them look ridiculous. They just assert "you lost" and pat themselves on the back.

The best is at the end, when the only proof of "God" that is offered is a quote from the bible in which "God", in the bible mind you, says "I am that I am". Oh! That solves it! "God" clearly says "he" exist in the bible...done and done, what else proof do you need?!

What Eric Hovind (the other Hovind's son?) and Sye are attempting is presuppositional apologetics. I have described it in a little detail in another post. I will give you the argument as I understand it from Bahnsen. It goes something like this:

At the base of a naturalistic worldview is reason. Empirical evidence too plays an important role but its use is ultimately resolvable to reason, namely deductive and inductive arguments. Thus at the base of the naturalistic edifice are the laws of classical logic, viz.

Law of identity.
Law of Noncontradiction.
Law of excluded midddle.

After Aristotle these are often referred to collectively as the Laws of Classical Logic.

The presuppositional argument--as I understand it--is that reason is without justification, the Three Laws are axiomatic for naturalism and it is circular to attempt to justify reason using reason (recall Sye's statement that it is "viciously circular").

Randi made a mistake when he contended that trying to justify reason with reason isn't circular and that is why--I think--the group that made this video counts it as a victory. Trying to justify reason using reason is circular and futile because you are presupposing what you are being asked to demonstrate, i.e. you are begging the question.

Bahnsen's argument IIRC is that if it is ok for the naturalist to give the Three Laws an axiomatic status then why is not not also acceptable for the Christian to give the existence of their God an axiomatic status. They are saying, "you put reason at the base of your worldview, I choose to put the exitence of a personal God at the base of my worldview". That is the substance of the argument though in some debates he mashed it together with the uniformity argument.

In my other post on this topic I described presuppositional apologetics as a kind of appeal to a god of the philosophical gaps and this is an illustrative example. The epistemic and ontological status of the laws of classical logic is a problem, it is one of the topics that the philosophy of logic is concerned with.

So what should the naturalists response be to this challenge of justification? I think there are at least two (linked) good responses:

(1) The fundamental laws of classical logic are axioms and we justify their use on pragmatic grounds, i.e. we use them because they work. They work most of the time. In those cases where they don't work we...

(2) ...deviate from them and use non-classical logics which reject one or more of the three laws of classical logic. For example, classical logic does not work well for geographic information systems because boundary locations run afoul of the law of the excluded middle so in that knowledge domain we use a many-valued logic such as fuzzy logic which does not have the law of the excluded middle and instead allows a truth value between 0 and 1. Similarly paraconsistent logics reject the law of noncontradiction and they too find applications in computing. Many-valued logics have also been proposed for QM. The need for non-classical logics to some extent counts against the attribution of classical logic to God (which is the next tactical step after proposing God as the basis of the Christian worldview). Arguing that the laws of classical logic extend from divine providence implies that non-classical logics are "not of God".

By providing a non-circular, non-question-begging justification of the laws of classical logic you have short-circuited the presuppositional argument. You have demonstrated that the valorisation of reason is not arbitrary and that it is not parasitic on the existence of Yahweh. So the argument will not usually proceed to the "why can't I put Yahweh/Jehovah at the bottom of my worldview?". But if does you can retort that it is a redundancy which will introduce more problems that it solves. (1) and (2) honour Occam's Razor and they don't obviously demand further explanation.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chippy's post
19-11-2013, 04:09 AM
RE: Randi shows how to handle Hovind types.
(19-11-2013 01:12 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  


I only got 3/4 way through this awful video. The producer of this video clearly has studied neither philosophy, formal logic or computer science.

(1) The laws of classical logic have been rejected in some fields and applications (see my other post in this thread) so both the presuppositional argument and this supposed defense are misguided;

(2) The presuppositional argument is not circular because the apologist justifies reason with faith in God;

(3) The metaphysical naturalist could/should justify reason with reference to pragmatism. How do we justify pragmatism? With reference to outcomes. We use reason--i.e. the laws of classical logic--until it fails us then we create another type of reason that works where it previously failed. The fact that there are a multitude of logics demonstrates that we have no special commitment to the three laws of classical logic and it also shows that the laws of classical logic are not privileged as you would expect them to be if they were supplied by a God.

The idea that there are logics and no such thing as logic is a mindfuck for most people.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 04:42 AM
RE: Randi shows how to handle Hovind types.
(19-11-2013 04:09 AM)Chippy Wrote:  I only got 3/4 way through this awful video. The producer of this video clearly has studied neither philosophy, formal logic or computer science.

(1) The laws of classical logic have been rejected in some fields and applications (see my other post in this thread) so both the presuppositional argument and this supposed defense are misguided;

(2) The presuppositional argument is not circular because the apologist justifies reason with faith in God;

(3) The metaphysical naturalist could/should justify reason with reference to pragmatism. How do we justify pragmatism? With reference to outcomes. We use reason--i.e. the laws of classical logic--until it fails us then we create another type of reason that works where it previously failed. The fact that there are a multitude of logics demonstrates that we have no special commitment to the three laws of classical logic and it also shows that the laws of classical logic are not privileged as you would expect them to be if they were supplied by a God.

The idea that there are logics and no such thing as logic is a mindfuck for most people.


He's a scientist, although I can't remember if he's a biologist or a bio-chemist. He spends most of his time shooting down Intelligent Design and the Discovery Institute, when he not doing his actual job and publishing work. He's also a regular co-host of The Magic Sandwich Show with DPR Jones and AronRa.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: