|
Post by hazelireland on Oct 19, 2009 7:21:57 GMT
Hyth,
If you can not take a compliment when it is given then so be it but do not misinterpret me as trying to invovle you in any „spat“.
Dealing with one issue of why I can not answer your question does not deal with all of them. I explained clearly twice now why I can not tell you what your evidence for your proposition should be. I also pointed out that this is not expected of us in any other area of discourse, so I have to reject this attempt to make it one rule for you and one for everyone else.
If you have a proposition to make, no matter what it is, then the onus is on you to make said proposition, present the evidence for it, and explain why the evidence supports your claim. This is how it works everywhere else and so this is how I work it here too.
As for your last point, that deductive reasoning etc can be presented, let me repeat what I have been saying again. I will consider ALL evidence put before me and the reasons put forward for why that evidence is supporting a given proposition. So by default the answer to your question is of course you can present such evidence.
However if you have no proposition to make, or evidence to present as you have suggested above, then this conversation would appear to be over. I look forward to the day you change this.
|
|
|
Post by hythlodaye on Oct 25, 2009 20:39:10 GMT
Haze, I cannot thank you for a compliment made at the expense of a third party. Your spat with Hibernicus is quite irrelevant to the matter in hand, and there was no need to refer to him at all. I don't know where you get this curious idea that I am obliged to act as god's defence counsel, while you sit as judge and jury. You came on to this forum and challenged its very raison d'etre. It is up to you to justify your position, not me to justify mine--whatever it may be. I think any impartial reader would agree that I have met you more than half way. I can only repeat that I was not trying to "prove" anything, and so do not have any "proposition", as such, to make. I agree with you that this discussion doesn't appear to be going anywhere, so we had better both stop wasting our time. However, as I think I indicated earlier, I'd still be quite curious to know how, if there were a god, he/she/it would have to manifest himself in order to convince you of his existence. I also wonder how you would refute the arguments of Aquinas from motion, efficient causality, possibility and necessity, gradation, and governance. If you are seriously interested in the question of god's existence or non-existence, rather than just in lobbing coconuts, I suggest you Google the BBC Third Programme debate between Bertrand Russell and Frederick Copleston. It is a model, from both parties, of what such a discussion should be like, and is distinguished by respect for the other point of view. A more recent discussion, this time on RTE, between Richard Dawkins and David Quinn, is also worth a visit.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Oct 26, 2009 7:50:19 GMT
Again if you can not take a compliment then build a bridge and move on. I will dwell on it no more.
Also I did not come on here challenging anything. The owner of the site invited us politely and kindly. Please do not come on here with 4 posts and assume to know the history of this board.
As for how a god would manifest itself, I do not know. Imagining such a being is your department, not mine. You tell me what god means to you and how you think it manifests itself and we will seek evidence for that.
Also if there is an argument you want me to refute I will gladly do it, but you will have to adumbrate them rather than just give them one or two word names. Exactly what is it you want me to refute? Let us take one of them at a time.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 26, 2009 12:50:33 GMT
One criterion for proof is accurate prediction. Hylothdaye should note that I predicted exactly how hazelireland would respond. I also wish to point out to hazelireland that hylothdaye states quite clearly that he is arguing from an agnostic position (whether or not he is an agnostic I do not know). Perhaps Hylothdaye is one of those people, strange and incomprehensible as they may appear to hazelireland, who believe that clear exposition, logic and thought are good things to be pursued and developed for their own sake irrespective of the conclusions to which they lead, rather than toys to be discarded if they threaten the security of one's own intellectual playpen. I hereby offer to take up the question of what constitutes evidence for God's existence with hylothdaye, on condition that hazelireland keeps out of the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Oct 27, 2009 7:59:02 GMT
Hibernicus, Hylothdaye is perfectly capable of explaining himself. I do not need you to tell me what he is saying or where he is coming from or what kind of person he might or might not be.. Speak for yourself only, and allow others to do the same.
There is also no onus on me to stay out of any discussion. I can talk to Hylo all I want. He can reply to you, he can reply to me, and you can ignore any side discussions that I have with him. This is how a public forum works. You do not get to tell people who can or can not post. If you want a private one on one discussion with him, there is a perfectly operable PM system to use.
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Oct 29, 2009 21:13:41 GMT
Guillaume, With all due respect, don't you think it is pretty sneaky of you to criticise Michael as moderator as being extremely poor? and to do so publicly and to a new member- please learn some prudence!!!! and also apologise..some of us here do in fact speak french you know? Bit of confusion here. I didn't say that Michael was poor, but his presence on the forum was not frequent. I apologies if there were any means of offence here or confusion. Thanks for the friendly interventions but there is a lot in what Guillaume said, whether in French or in this more recent post. I have not been giving this forum proper attention because I was distracted by various things. I hope to do better from now on. I have been looking for a co-moderator but without success so far.
|
|
|
Post by hythlodaye on Nov 1, 2009 21:03:11 GMT
Re Hazelireland and Hibernicus: First, Hazel: 1) If Haze can't see why I can't accept a "compliment" obviously intended as a spiteful put-down to Hibernicus, he is not as intelligent as I had assumed. 2) Haze certainly did challenge the raison d'etre of this forum. If atheism is true, then Christianity/Judaism/Islam are so much superstitious rubbish. 3) I think I know the history of this forum at least as well as Haze. It seems not to have occurred to him that I might have been following it a long time before I joined--which is indeed the case. The number of posts I have made is quite irrelevant. 4) Accusing me of "imagining" some being is juvenile and cheap. He knows nothing whatever about me, or my personal beliefs, which are also irrelevant. (At this point, if I adopted Haze's methods of controversy, I would probably shout "Liar, liar, liar!") 5) I am not going to plant chunks of Aquinas on this forum as I don't think the moderator would be very pleased. Haze can look up the references I have given for himself if he has the inclination---which I doubt. 6) Up till now, I have resisted the temptation to be nasty, but I've had enough. I wish Haze joy at the coconut shy, and I will leave the last word to him. He would take it, anyway, even if this discussion dragged on to the crack of doom (if there is such a thing). He has all the dreary, repetitive persistence of a Jehovah's Witness--or perhaps a stalker. 7) In conclusion, may I congratulate Haze in advance on his victory over the dark forces of reaction? ;)I think he should get a life, both temporal and eternal--if there is such a thing as eternal life. Next, Hibernicus: 1) Yes, I have to admit that Hib's prediction was completely accurate, and my apologies for doubting him. I can now see why he lost his patience and became rather rude. This outcome is disappointing for me, as I had hoped for a good discussion. I usually find atheists rather more impressive than liberal Christians--though less fun than orthodox Roman Catholics and Evangelicals. 2) Yes, I think it would be very interesting to read Hib's views on what might constitute evidence for the existence of god. 3). Now I have a prediction for Hib: Haze won't keep out of it. I have come to the conclusion that from now on he is best ignored. Lastly, for everyone: Seriously, the question of God's existence is the most important that everyone has to face. It should not be treated as a childish game. As Blaise Pascal, probably the most impressive and original thinker of the 17th century (he invented the computer) pointed out: if the atheists are right, both they and the theists face oblivion after death. If the theists are right, then they themselves face an eternity of either bliss or misery; but only the latter option faces the atheists (unless their ignorance is invincible, which one can never presume).
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Nov 2, 2009 8:52:27 GMT
Congratulations on your deductive powers to be able to predict I would reply. Given that this is a forum where people discuss things and discussions are made of people saying one thing and someone else saying something in response.... your ability to deduce that I would reply is clearly miraculous. Puh-leeese.
Again if you can not accept a compliment then get over it. It is not my problem and if you have to reduce yourself to calling people unintelligent instead then the only person here with a problem is yourself. Remember this rule: Insults demean only the insulter, not the insulted and if you want to respond to a compliment with insults then this says more about you than I ever could, so I thank you for that.
If you want to sit there and call people “not as intelligent as I had assumed” or “dreary” or “stalker” or “get a life” then you are welcome to do so, but be under no illusions, only you are demeaned in this not me. If this is the type of behaviour borne of the faith you claim to have then I not only see no evidence that this god entity exists, but I am rather relieved too as I would want no part of a world view that leads me to use insults as a place holder for evidence.
If you want to come on to a forum with 5 posts and start claiming to know its history better than someone who has been here for over 327 and over 100 on another discontinued account then so be it. More illusions will get us nowhere. Suffice to say my presence on this forum is by invitation of the owner. So again: Get over it. Address the posts not the poster.
You can complain all you like that me saying you are “imagining” a being is “childish” but if you are entirely unable to give any evidence for the entity in question then I simply am left with no other conclusion. I can not invent conclusions to pander to what you personally subjectively feel is childish or not and certainly not to what you call childish just because you have decided to use insults in place of arguments.
Finally, I find it highly comical that you should say the existence of god should not be treated as a game, and then you refer to Pascal!!! He is one of the most famed people who DID reduce it all to a game. A game of chance. Instead of evidence he turned it all into a game, or a “wager”.
Where as I am on forums such as this genuinely asking people like you for evidence for the existence for this god (and continually first not being given any of it and second being outright insulted for even asking) he just essentially said ‘Oh forget all that evidence stuff, let’s look at what you can WIN’
He decided to tell us to forget all evidence, but consider what you have to “win” or “lose” in the attempt (my quotes not his). This is hucksterism of the highest degree on his part. Firstly it assumes that belief is something you choose. I can not decide what to believe. I have to look at the evidence and decide what the best conclusion is. I can not ignore all the evidence I have been currently given, and just “decide” to believe something for which I have none.
Secondly it bypasses belief any way. It is an attempt to deceive the god you sit here claiming to believe in. It is a call on one to act as if they do believe in the hope of “winning”. As if your “all powerful god” is so dumb to the core that it would not see through this charade.
Despite all this, even if we were to dignify the “wager” with a response, it fails utterly as it first assumes that which it is trying to convince you of: There there is one god and he knows which one it is. The Wager utterly fails to take into account all the other gods you might want to bet on. And remember, in Abrahamic monotheism non belief is a mere sin but worshipping the “wrong” god is one of the big ten commandments. This turns the wager on its head as it is now “safer” to believe in no god, than to pick a god and get it wrong.
PS Thanks for indicating to Hibernicus that his behavior on the forum has been "rude".
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Nov 2, 2009 9:22:12 GMT
Further to the user above saying that this is a very important discussion, I would like to second that. Knowledge about our origins is THE biggest discussion there is to have. That does not elevate us for having it of course, but it is a discussion we simply have to have. Scientifically and philosophically we can not know where we are going unless we first know where we have come from.
Although I may appear stand offish in this, it is not because I am trying to convert anyone or win some kind of debate. I do not want to be “better” than anyone here. Discourse is, above all, the most important thing we have as a species to work together and to discover our past. When I find someone rubbishing or belittling themselves and discourse by reducing themselves to insults I will of course point this out.
There are so many possible explanations for our origins and that of our universe. There are the incredible number of answers thus far dreamed up, and there is the infinite number of ideas that have not yet been dreamed up.
If we had to consider them all there is none of us who would have time to do so if we spent our entire lives doing so, and that of our children, our children’s children and so on for innumerable generations.
This is why I say it is important that any explanation put forward by anyone should come with their evidence and their explanation for that evidence and how it supports their thesis. The onus is on the person suggesting the solution to supply this evidence and explain how it supports their suggestion. The onus is NEVER on the target to specify the evidence for the suggestion. It is a bastardisation of common discourse to even suggest it which is why I dismiss it here.
There are millions of people suggesting a god, but not one of them that I have spoken to has given me any evidence to support this conclusion since I started asking around age 12. Millions of people is enough to warrant my continued investigation into the area and not just dismiss it entirely out of hand… however after that many years asking (I am now about to turn 31) there are only two truths on the subject of god so far that I can say with any authority:
1) No one is thus far capable or willing to provide me with a single shred of a scrap of evidence 2) Merely asking for evidence is enough to reduce people to rage and childish insulting behaviour such as that demonstrated above.
If this god exists and people are so sure of it, why do they need to reduce themselves to insults and outright lies in order to support their position? Let us have SOME decorum here please and sit down and discuss the facts that each person here thinks supports their claim there is such an entity in existence. TELL us what evidence you have for such a claim and how you think the evidence supports your claim. Stop hiding behind insults, lies and fatuous claims that someone else has to specify what the evidence is for the position YOU hold.
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Nov 2, 2009 11:52:02 GMT
1) If Haze can't see why I can't accept a "compliment" obviously intended as a spiteful put-down to Hibernicus, he is not as intelligent as I had assumed. I find it somewhat ironic that you admonish Hazel for a spiteful put down and then go on to accuse him of being unintelligent. Pot and kettle? 6) Up till now, I have resisted the temptation to be nasty, but I've had enough. I wish Haze joy at the coconut shy, and I will leave the last word to him. He would take it, anyway, even if this discussion dragged on to the crack of doom (if there is such a thing). He has all the dreary, repetitive persistence of a Jehovah's Witness--or perhaps a stalker. It seems you waited until you made 5 posts before you became nasty. Well done......... Yes, I think it would be very interesting to read Hib's views on what might constitute evidence for the existence of god. I am behind this. Start a thread Hib and lets discuss it at length. Now I have a prediction for Hib: Haze won't keep out of it. I have come to the conclusion that from now on he is best ignored. A spiteful and childish comment. Beneath you sir. Ignoring and dismissing someone because they have a differing view from yours is downright ignorant. I implore other members of the forum to rise above such a sentiment. The asertion as put forward by Blaise Pascal has been dicussed several times on many forums and its inherent paradox pointed out repeatedly. Perhaps it may have been wise to consider this before using it as one of the tenets of your argument. It is a fundamentally flawed assertion and to use it to back up a case merely weakens that case.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 3, 2009 12:00:51 GMT
Pascal's wager is pretty simplistic - except in the sense that it is a reminder that we cannot simply be indifferent to this question since a decision will have important consequences either way - not necessarily in the next life but in this one. (This of course assumes that the person addressed wishes to avoid doing evil and to do good, even if there are no consequences for him personally). Pascal is not proposing a mere game but a calculation of probability. Anyone who claims to take an interest in science should know that it is based on such calculations.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 3, 2009 12:23:49 GMT
I might add that Hazel has declared that we have to choose from a wide variety of possible positions and that life is too short to decide between them. This is precisely what lies behind the concept of faith; since life must be faced we make a decision and try to live by it, but a reasonable person will hold themselves open to possible correction if they can be shown to be mistaken. He then commits himself to one position, atheism, and declares that anyone who wishes to convince him of another one must provide evidence to support their belief, while he is under no obligation to do so or even to acknowledge what he means by evidence. Thus anyone who tries to engage in a debate with Hazel is placed in the position of trying to create the works of Shakespeare by setting an infinite number of monkeys to work with typewriters,added to which is the possibility that Hazel may mistakenly think that the collected works of Marlowe are the works of Shakespeare and may reject the genuine works of Shakespeare if they are produced. Doesn't hazel realise that this is the very definition of blind faith - indeed, of fideism (the belief that faith is completely alien to reason)?
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Nov 3, 2009 16:57:33 GMT
A calculation of probability in science hibernicus is one of how likely the proposition is to be true. This is nothing like what Pascal was suggesting. His "wager" was nothing to do with whether it was true or not, but the personal benefits of pretending it is. Not remotely scientific. In fact I find it to be hucksterism of the highest order. The man sat there, found no reason AT ALL to suggest that the proposition is true, so he bypassed that and said “What have you got to lose?”
As for your statements on faith, I am not taking just one position. I am saying that there are near infinite numbers of positions, ALL of which I reject until any of them can be shown to be true. Given that there is an infinite number of positions, yours included, that no evidence has been provided for... the only course open to me is to reject them until at least some evidence comes in.
This is not, as you put it, taking a position. It is rejecting a position until there is some reason to consider it. Similarly I do not have a “position” on santa, fairies, thor, unicorns, leprechauns or alien abductions. I merely proceed in my life without reference to these assumptions as there is no basis for granting them any credence. I do not “take a position” against theism any more than I do against these things.
|
|
|
Post by Hemingway on Nov 4, 2009 0:04:34 GMT
Pascal's wager is pretty simplistic - except in the sense that it is a reminder that we cannot simply be indifferent to this question since a decision will have important consequences either way - not necessarily in the next life but in this one. (This of course assumes that the person addressed wishes to avoid doing evil and to do good, even if there are no consequences for him personally). Pascal is not proposing a mere game but a calculation of probability. Anyone who claims to take an interest in science should know that it is based on such calculations. Pascal's wager has inherent weaknesses: Weaknesses #1 - Is believing in God sufficient for salvation?Many religions require that a person do more than simply believe in the existence of God for salvation. Different religions have very different criteria for salvation Weaknesses #2 - Which God must we believe in?Christians generally believe in the Trinity of God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit. But if Christianity is wrong, and Islam is correct, then Allah will punish the Christian believer with horrendous tortures. Meanwhile, Muslims believe in the single, indivisible deity Allah, who is very different from the Christian Trinity. If Islam is wrong, and Christianity is correct, then the Christian God will torture all Muslims for eternity without any hope of mercy or a cessation of their pain. The problem is even more complex than is indicated above. There have been countless deities among the tens of thousands of religions in which people believe or have believed. Weaknesses #3 -- Does any human belief matter?Many Christians believe in Predestination - a concept promoted by John Calvin and other theologians. The theory is that God has divided humanity into two groups: A small percentage of people who God will save and who will attain heaven. They are not chosen by God on the basis of any merit on their part -- because they have led good lives, for example. They have done absolutely nothing to deserve this fate. A much larger group, that God has decided to not save. They will spend eternity being tortured without mercy in Hell. They also have done nothing to warrant being chosen differently from those who are saved. Weakness #4 -- Is Heaven better than Hell?Some visualize Heaven as a place where one praises God, sings hymns, basks in the presence of Jesus continuously. Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) once commented that the average Christian has considerable difficulty sitting through a single church service every Sunday. The thought of having to endure a 24 hour service is dreadful. The image of what is essentially a church service of infinite length would be beyond endurance. Meanwhile, many Christian denominations have interpreted Hell as a place or condition where one is simply separated from the presence of God. Some Agnostics and Atheists live their entire lives continuously in this condition and are quite happy. On balance, some might prefer Hell to Heaven. Weakness #5 -- Can one make themselves believe?Pascal seems to accept voluntarism: the concept that belief is a matter of the will. That is, a person can simply decide to believe in the existence of God. It can be argued that if people believe something on insufficient evidence, that the result is the promoting of credulity -- something that harms society. Again, that could be a sin that God is particularly concerned about punishing. Weakness #6 -- Is a greedy decision valid?Some might argue that an insincere wager is worthless. God, being omniscient and omnipotent, knows our motivations. If a person decided to believe in God in order to increase their chances for a good life after death, then such an insincere decision might be rejected by God. In fact, if there were some doubt in God's mind whether the individual should be sent to Heaven or Hell, a deceitful decision might be counter-productive. It might tip the scales in favor of Hell. Weakness #7 -- Can we guess God's criteria for salvation?Perhaps God does not care whether a person believes in him or not. Perhaps he will to treat the person who seeks to understand God but, to be honorable to himself, must remain an Agnostic. Perhaps he will treat people harshly if they blindly accept the existence of God without any proof. Weakness #8 -- Is the probability that God exists greater than zero?What is the possibility that a God exists who exhibits such intense wrath against unbelievers that he sends them all to Hell for eternal punishment? (The term "wrath" seems like a better term that "hatred" here because so many people associate God with pure love). Some feel that the possibility is zero. If so, then no possibility of an infinite reward results in no reward, and Pascal's Wager collapses. Weakness #9: God is just:Some would argue that for God to discriminate against skeptical individuals would be akin to racism, sexism and homophobia. He would not require a skeptic to believe in God in order to attain Heaven - something that the skeptic could not achieve. It would be neither fair nor just. References:T.M. Drange, "Pascal's Wager Refuted," at: www.infidels.org/library/modern/ Massimo Pigliucci, "A refutation of Pacal's wager and why skeptics should be non-theists," Massimo's Skeptic and Humanist Web, at: fp.bio.utk.edu/skeptic/essays/
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 4, 2009 12:57:09 GMT
The refutation offered by Hemingway misses the point quite spectacularly.
Its fundamental flaw is that it assumes Pascal is asking his interlocutor to do NOTHING more than believe in God and telling him that he will be saved if he does so. Pascal is saying that belief in God, or at least accepting that belief in God is a serious and important possibility, is a necessary starting point, not that it is sufficient for salvation. The Devil believes in God's existence - that doesn't mean he is saved.
This would include some degree of investigation as to which is the true religion (objection 2). Although Pascal was a Catholic, he held certain views which are on the fringe of Catholicism and might be regarded as heretical - that is no reason why we cannot learn from him. It is possible for a Catholic to learn from Dostoevsky although Dostoevsky hated Catholicism.
Objection 2 and several of the later objections further assume that God will damn everyone who does not believe in Him. This is not Catholic orthodoxy (although many Catholics have believed in it) and Pascal's wager holds even if it only maintains (a) belief makes it easier to be saved (b) even if we can be saved without belief we should still wish to do and believe that which is right rather than that which is mistaken, just as any honest person would wish to be courteous and fair-minded, rather than a bully and an obscurantist such as Hazelireland.
Objection 3 does not apply to non-believers in predestination, and a predestinarian would presumably adhere to Point (b) above. I have certainly known of Calvinists who said they would praise God even if they themselves were damned. I think this view shows a misunderstanding of the nature of God's justice, but I respect it because it rests on a determination to understand reality even if it is unpleasant.
Objection 4 is a really dishonest exercise in Mix and Match. The most grossly anthropomorphic image of Heaven is contrasted with the most abstract image of Hell. Believers hold that atheists and agnostics who do not believe in God's existence are not absent from His presence in this life. Similarly, they hold that all the highest joys of our earthly existence are glimpses of the ecstasy of contemplating God, and that if we restrict or limit their enjoyment here it is for the sake of that final fulfilment - to be forever in the state of mind of Einstein when he grasped his greatest theories, of Dante when he wrote his greatest poetry, of the Lover united to the beloved: The bride eyes not her garment But the Bridegroom's dear face I shall not see His glory But the King of Grace Not for the gifts He offers But for His outstretched hand The Lamb is all the glory In Emmanuel's Land
Objection 5 is similarly misconceived. It is quite true that no-one can make themselves believe; the point is to shake them out of their dogmatic slumbers and to make them take the possibility of belief seriously.
Objection 6 is also misconceived - first because it assumes belief is the endpoint instead of the starting point; second because it sees heaven as an externally-conferred reward rather than the end for which we are created. The latter is an example of the nominalist corruption of scholasticism - the tendency to see God as operating by will rather than by Reason, and as exercising arbitrary power from outside creation rather than through it, which underlies many modernist fallacies.
Objection 7 - This rests on the assumption that what Pascal is advocating is a blind craving for reward rather than a desire to discover and pursue the true end and meaning of our lives. It may be added that God is fundamentally reasonable and though his reason may exceed ours he is unlikely to contradict our understanding of His revelation - thus the objection to the Calvinist view raised in an earlier objection, which assumes divine justice can directly contradict justice as ordinarily understood.
Objection 8 This objection mixes up the question of whether God exists with His justice, and once again assumes that Pascal is presenting belief as an endpoint rather than a starting-point and that the unbliever will be damned purely for unbelief rather than as an indirect consequence of it.
Objection 9 is covered by the points raised in response to the other points. God will not damn sincere skeptics who try to do good as they see it. I would not be so sure, however, about dogmatic atheists, miscalling themselves sceptics, who refuse to take this serious question seriously and who try to meet it with frivolous objections which are on the same intellectual level as Bishop Samuel Wilberforce's refusal to believe in evolution because he thought it an insult to his grandmother to suggest that she was descended from an ape.
Hemingway has at least tried to put forward arguments, however facile and misunderstood. We now turn to Hazelireland.
In relation to Hazelireland's comments on Pascal, I wonder how much he actually knows about Pascal? A brief trip to Wikipedia suggests that Hazel's claim that Pascal's reasoning has nothing to do with probability theory is a bit misleading, since Pascal actually founded the discipline!
As for his claim that Pascal had NO other argument for the existence of God than the wager, I suggest he read Pascal's PENSEES - or indeed this passage from Wikipedia: EXTRACT In De l'Art de persuader ("On the Art of Persuasion"), Pascal looked deeper into geometry's axiomatic method, specifically the question of how people come to be convinced of the axioms upon which later conclusions are based. Pascal agreed with Montaigne that achieving certainty in these axioms and conclusions through human methods is impossible. He asserted that these principles can only be grasped through intuition, and that this fact underscored the necessity for submission to God in searching out truths. EXTRACT ENDS
Any intelligent person will recognise this as an argument that (a) the ability of the mind to grasp reality suggests it is not the result of a purely random process (b) if the standards of scepticism applied by such as Hazelireland were really what we relied on, we would never know anything at all, and insofar as Hazelireland and Co know anything at all it is because they do not in practice observe the standards by which they condemn religious belief. I recommend that Hazel should pay attention to his method of argument when he demands that before describing a particular Marian vision as false believers must first establish that there are any true apparitions. The difference is that Pascal tried to establish generally accepted standards of proof whose validity could be seen by any reasonable inquirer, while Hazel refuses to state what standards of proof (if any) he has in mind: EXTRACT In the face of criticism that some invisible matter must exist in Pascal's empty space, Pascal, in his reply to Estienne Noel, gave one of the seventeenth century's major statements on the scientific method: "In order to show that a hypothesis is evident, it does not suffice that all the phenomena follow from it; instead, if it leads to something contrary to a single one of the phenomena, that suffices to establish its falsity." His insistence on the existence of the vacuum also led to conflict with other prominent scientists, including Descartes. EXTRACT ENDS
Now for Hazel's exercise in question-begging:
As for your statements on faith, I am not taking just one position. I am saying that there are near infinite numbers of positions, ALL of which I reject until any of them can be shown to be true. Given that there is an infinite number of positions, yours included, that no evidence has been provided for... the only course open to me is to reject them until at least some evidence comes in.
This is not, as you put it, taking a position. It is rejecting a position until there is some reason to consider it. Similarly I do not have a “position” on santa, fairies, thor, unicorns, leprechauns or alien abductions. I merely proceed in my life without reference to these assumptions as there is no basis for granting them any credence. I do not “take a position” against theism any more than I do against these things.
Hazel assumes that by adopting atheism he is somehow standing outside the universe and that atheism, unlike theism is not a philosophical position and does not require proof. He declares that to reject the existence of Thor, fairies, leprechauns, unicorns and alien abductions as anything other than the products of the human imagination (as I do) is not to take a position on them.
Let us suppose that I declare that Hazelireland does not exist but is merely the creation of an Opus Dei member with a wicked sense of humour who wishes to illustrate to those in the know all the shortcomings and fallacies of atheism, and that I refuse to believe in Hazelireland's existence until he provides me with proof that he exists, and furthermore that I refuse to say what I will accept as proof and reserve the right to reject any proof that is offered to me as not being really proof without explaining why I do not consider it to be proof. Surely that would be to take a position on the question of Hazel's existence?
|
|