principe nuovo

Steve Hays has responded to my challenge regarding the problem of presuppositionalism and proof-burdens, as well as external evaluation of the veracity of presuppositions themselves, in a post cleverly titled Machiavelli Rises from the Grave. Like Machiavelli, I agree that a new prince, or principe nuovo, has a much tougher job than a prince who is descended from the royal line. The way this ties in is that the TAG is a sort of "new prince", and presuppositionalism (PS) is just the king's kid. While the TAG has to support its premises with argument, we see no such necessity with common, everyday PS.

In PS, one can either have an individually-directed claim, "you cannot account for X", or a generally-directed claim, "atheism cannot account for X", and in neither case is there some sort of burden of proof on the PS to make a real argument. Instead, the PS stands back, folds his arms, and waits for the defender to either have insufficient metaphysical arguments or incoherent ones to critique. End of story.

Steve accused me of trickery in referring to conceptual realism:

i) Does nsfl subscribe to Cocchiarella’s solution? Of is this just one of those blocking maneuvers recommended by Witmer to silence the presuppositionalist if you can’t answer him?

To which I replied:

I find both his forms of conceptual realism (intensional/natural) completely consistent with physicalism as an ontology. As I was reading them (sections 6 and 7, respectively), I found he had put into words what I tried to describe long ago on this blog, when you brought up "pure" conceptualism, in which these abstractions don't exist apart from our minds at all. Therefore, your accusation is refuted by the evidence that I resorted to conceptualism in the past as an explanation of abstract explananda within physicalism.

Steve completely misunderstood this:

“Refuted” by what evidence? Yours or Cocchiarella’s? At the time, I was responding to your formulation, not his—since his formulation wasn’t on the table back then.

I'm referring to the accusation that I'm "employing a trick" via Prof. Witmer's advice by "falling back" to conceptual realism. I'm not claiming his worldview is refuted by my position.

The following exchange is from the newest thread, Steve's words in italics, mine blockquoted:

My purpose was to defend my own presupposition that physicalism is not incompatible with logic. Would you concede that conceptual realism is the solution? Do you admit that there is nothing absurd or incoherent in holding to physicalism and to one of Cocchiarella's forumulations for the explanandum of logic?
Presuppositionalism claims that all alternative worldviews are inherently and intrinsically self-defeating. Can you show this for someone who subscribes to physicalism and to conceptual intensional realism?

No, I wouldn’t concede any such thing.

1.He says that “as a socio-biological theory of the human capacity for language and though, conceptualism must presuppose some form of natural realism as the causal ground of that capacity.”

But this is circular reasoning. He first classifies conceptualism as a “socio-biological” theory, then says it must presuppose some form of natural realism. That may be a valid inference, given the classification, but he does nothing to justify his naturalistic classification in the first place.

So are you saying that humans can have language and thought without any natural grounding? Human thought and language do not supervene upon natural processes: chemistry, physics, matter...? Is he supposed to instead presuppose the existence of the immaterial spirit, and deny that thought or language (as we know them) supervene upon the physical? And if he did that, and said, "Conceptualism is a spiritual theory, which presupposes some form of supernaturalism..." is that not the same circular issue?

2.He then says “As universals that can be realized indifferent places at the same time and that might have no instances at all in the world, natural properties and relations are not in the world the way that concrete objects are, nor can they be considered to have an ‘objectual’ nature in any sense as well…the unsaturated mode of being of natural properties and relations…[is] somehow analogous to the mode of being of concepts. Thus, just as predicable concepts do not exist independently of the human capacity for language and concept-formation, so too natural properties and relations[s] do not exist independently of the causal structure of the world.

Several basic problems:

a) He admits the existence of unexemplified universals: “might have no instances at all in the world.”

How is that possible if the world is all there is?

Are you claiming that "unicorn-ness" and "Lochness monsterism" must be instantiated?

b) He then attempts to find a nook for them by claiming that the “unsaturated” mode of being of natural properties an relations is “somehow analogous” to the mode of being of concepts.

But this is an argument from analogy minus the argument? How does he unpack the “somehow”? He doesn’t. Just his sheer dictum.

c) Moreover, even if there were an analogy, it’s only as good as the analogue which supplies the point of reference. He claims that predicable concepts don’t exist independently of human concept-formation.

But that, again, is a raw assertion rather than a reasoned argument. Why should I accept the claim which undergirds the analogy?

So he fails on both counts. He (i) gives us an argument from analogy minus the argument. And he also (ii) fails to argue for the underlying analogue.

3. He then says:

“abstract objects…according to conceptual Platonism, ‘exist’ in a realm that transcends space, time and causality, and therefore that ‘preexist’ the evolution of consciousness…In conceptual intensional realism, on the other hand, the dependence is not merely epistemological but ontological as well.”

But if abstract universals are causally dependent on the evolution of consciousness, then this will collapse back into the “ontology of conceptual idealism,” which is what he was trying to avoid—and for good reason.

They are ontologically dependent upon the substance of matter, which is the substance upon which consciousness supervenes.

Why do you think he is avoiding conceptual idealism? He is a Christian, a Catholic priest.

a) If abstract universals like the laws of logic are causally dependent on the evolution of consciousness, then they lose their necessity and universality. They become descriptive rather than prescriptive or proscriptive. They can no longer distinguish logical reasoning from illogical reasoning, for they take human consciousness as their point of reference and point of departure.

b) Likewise, if abstract universals such as mathematical truths are causally dependent on the evolution of consciousness, then the universe did not exemplify any mathematical properties or relations prior to the evolution of consciousness.

In that case, the universe is evolving in relation to human evolution. The existence and structure of physical universe is, to that degree, causally dependent on human evolution.

c) Likewise, if mathematical abstracta are causally dependent on the evolution of human consciousness, then there can be no such thing as an actual infinite in math. You are thereby committed to finitism in math. But that is prey to a number of familiar criticisms.

Continuing with my own thoughts:

One could argue against this necessity in a few different ways, since as Walker points out, these transcendentals are "objective, prescriptive and metaphysically ultimate". I am thinking that Scripture cannot meet this requirement, nor special revelation generally…When Xians argue that the Scriptures provide for us an OPMU for morality, how does this fare through Walker's filter?… I would argue that this consideration presents a substantial challenge to the claim that OPMU morality can be based upon divine revelation via Scripture. It seems that the criteria cannot be met in an attitude-independent fashion, given the errant supposed copies we have of an OPMU moral law.

Morgan simply confuses the order of knowing with the order of being. Moral “transcendentals” can be objective, prescriptive and metaphysically ultimate” even though our mode of epistemic access is not ontological objective or metaphysically ultimate.

And if our mode of epistemic access is neither ontological[ly] objective nor metaphysically ultimate, then from what position can you argue for their truth in these two areas? It seems like I could say that there is some phenomenon, X, that is OPMU. However, if I cannot access it epistemically in any OPMU fashion, then where is the argument that you can establish X as OPMU? Is it not necessary to have a complete and thorough knowledge of X in order to argue X is OPMU?

How do you know X?

How do you know X is OPMU?

What’s a transcendental argument? How do you mount such an argument? Good questions.

Although TAG is an indirect argument inasmuch as you are arguing for the existence of God by arguing from certain undeniable phenomena, the argument(s) for the identity of these phenomena as well as their theistic dependence will take the form of direct argumentation.

James Anderson has also disassembled the Van Tilian version of TAG into several subarguments.

http://www.proginosko.com/docs/IfKnowledgeThenGod.pdf

And these could be developed in more detail.

Interlocuter has responded to some of Anderson's arguments, which are good ones.

Oddly enough, Paul Manata has admitted that the "development" of the TAG from the PS position is not only premature for such an ability (to use it as an indirect argument for God), but he has admitted that it is only an assertion.

He points out that:
i) If X, then God
ii) X
iii) Therefore God

Supporting premise (i) is the problem, of course. Prof. Witmer talked about this a bit on Unchained Radio with Gene Cook.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Philosophy, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creationism --

GQS #3 and COTG 53

The 53rd edition of the Carnival of the Godless is up at Debunking Christianity. I was the editor.

God Quote Sunday #3:

"Gentle is Zarathustra to the sickly. Verily, he is not indignant at their modes of consolation and ingratitude. May they become convalescents and overcomers, and create higher bodies for themselves! Neither is Zarathustra indignant at a convalescent who looketh tenderly on his delusions, and at midnight stealeth round the grave of his God; but sickness and a sick frame remain even in his tears. Many sickly ones have there always been among those who muse, and languish for God; violently they hate the discerning ones, and the latest of virtues, which is uprightness. Backward they always gaze toward dark ages: then, indeed, were delusion and faith something different. Raving of the reason was likeness to God, and doubt was sin."

"You are young and wish for a child and marriage. But I ask you: Are you a man entitled to wish for a child? Are the victorious one, the self-conqueror, the commander of your sense, the master of your virtues? This I ask of you. Or is it the animal and need that speak out of your wish? Or loneliness? Or lack of peace with yourself?"

"You pass over and beyond them: but the higher you ascend, the smaller you appear to the eye of envy. But most of all they hate those who fly."

"I teach you not the neighbor, but the friend. The friend should be the festival of the earth to you and an anticipation of the overman. I teach you the friend and his overflowing heart. But one must learn to be a sponge if one wants to be loved by hearts that overflow. I teach you the friend in whom the world stands completed, a bowl of goodness - the creating friend who always has a completed world to give away. And as the world rolled apart for him, it rolls together again in circles for him, as the becoming of the good through evil, as the becoming of purpose out of accident."

Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 1891 (full-text here)

________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Philosophy

The More Things Change...

In the October 1927 issue of Popular Science, we see some interesting thoughts from men who were, well, thoughtful:

Will Durant, Ph.D., Philosopher; Author, The Story of Philosophy; Director, Labor Temple School, New York

GOD, to me, is the creative power operating continuously in all the processes of growth. Religion is reverence for, and cooperation with, all the forces of growth, within ourselves and without. Science, if it takes its lead from physics, is in irreconcilable conflict with religion; but if science takes its lead from biology (as it may in our century) and recognizes that the processes of life reveal the inner nature of the world more nearly than the mechanisms of matter, it may be possible to reconcile science with a sane, natural religion.

As to harmonizing the theory of evolution with the Biblical account of creation I do not believe it can be done, and I do not see why it should. The story of Genesis is beautiful, and profoundly significant as symbolism; but there is no good reason to torture it into conformity with modern theory.

I'm reminded of Karen Armstrong's article, "Resisting Modernity" in which she writes

By the middle of the 20th century, pundits and intellectuals in the West generally took it for granted that secularism was the coming ideology and that religion would never again play a major role in public life. However, within a few years, it became clear that a militant piety had erupted in every major faith, dragging God and religion back to center stage from the sidelines to which they had been relegated. The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran showed the potential of this new form of faith. Western observers were astonished to see an obscure mullah overturning what had appeared to be one of the most progressive countries in the Middle East. “Who ever took religion seriously?” cried a frustrated official in the US State Department shortly after the revolution. But the United States itself had recently witnessed the rise of Jerry Falwell and his Moral Majority, and a radical religiosity fueled the Arab- Israeli conflict on both sides.

It is often forgotten that Darwin had friends within the Evangelical community for years. For years, Christians did not see the science of evolutionary theory as a threat to their faith.

For years, the attitude, "religion is dying as knowledge increases" has proven itself false. The postivists celebrated their empiricism and assumed that other human beings would fall into lockstep with them. They predicted the downfall of religion as science became the accepted way of looking at the world. They were wrong.

Many people saw the path of science bifurcate from that of religion -- the assumption of naturalism and the insistence on evidence contrasts sharply against that of dogma, tradition and faith; but the goal of science, the end of science, modern people still believe, converged with that of religion -- upon God. Many of these sorts of people (Durant above, Jastrow below) believe that science will somehow bring about, at whatever future point in time, more knowledge of God, rather than less reason to believe.

The attitude of Jastrow has a fatal flaw in its logic:

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been waiting there for centuries.
--Robert Jastrow, astronomer, in God and the Astronomers, W. W. Norton, p. 116, (1978).

If scientists are truly dedicated to discovering as much knowledge as possible via the application of reason and the scientific method to our universe, then this fails on many points. For one, it wouldn't be a scientist's nightmare to discover a Deity. If the method of science (somehow, theoretically) leads there, then the "true" scientist, following the method, should rejoice. And so this leads to the natural question: can the method of science actually provide such evidence? Because science has piled up mountains of natural knowledge, and undercuts belief in supernatural processes by providing evidence for a reasonable and rational natural alternative explanation, I do not think so.

For another thing, the mountains of ignorance have not been scaled by anyone, because believing that something is true doesn't accomplish the same work as science -- it doesn't confer real knowledge. The theologians are not standing there, waiting on scientists to catch up. The theologians have instead contributed to the mountains of ignorance for centuries (rather than standing loftily above them) by insisting on adherence to their various conflicting Scriptures and various conflicting interpretations. They are standing at the bottom of the mountain, professing to know what is above in the lofty heights; they do not know it.

It is only in Modernism that the Catholic faith finally admitted that the Big Bang and evolution are not anti-theistic and not heretical. And it is only because of the overwhelming evidence for both of these propositions, neither of which have ever even reasonably been posited by theologians. The primitive ideas for both of these things can be traced back to the Greeks and beyond, but it is one thing to say that people have had beliefs, and another thing entirely to say that people have established scientific knowledge.

Although I think the modern attitudes of most scientists have changed (see esp. the bottom part of that article) with respect to optimism towards the disappearance of superstition and religious dogma, there is no good reason to think that the underlying logic has changed. If people agree that the scientific method establishes knowledge, and that faith is not knowledge, then the bifurcation of science and religion is a deep and meaningful issue. If faith has not suffered, it has certainly adapted as knowledge has been established to contradict the teachings and interpretations of the Bible. Admittedly, theists may always claim that the contradiction lies in the interpretation of their Scriptures, and not in the Scriptures themselves, but the effect of marginalization of faith via scientific progress is a real phenomenon that I think modern theists are quite well-aware of.

And I think that their opposition to modern science is thus well-understood. They know the primitive and superstitious beliefs and traditions of the ancients have been left behind in the wake of scientific progress and revolution -- and turning backwards is an option they know isn't open or available.

Is it even possible for science to justify faith, or will it continue to peck away at the underlying support for belief in the necessity or evidence of supernaturalism?
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy

Red Wine: All the Good, None of the Bad

I know I am a little late on this.

Franklin once said that, "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us happy," but it appears that he had it wrong: red wine is the proof.

The researchers fed one group of mice a diet in which 60 percent of calories came from fat. The diet started when the mice, all males, were a year old, which is middle-aged in mouse terms. As expected, the mice soon developed signs of impending diabetes, with grossly enlarged livers, and started to die much sooner than mice fed a standard diet.

Another group of mice was fed the identical high-fat diet but with a large daily dose of resveratrol (far larger than a human could get from drinking wine). The resveratrol did not stop them from putting on weight and growing as tubby as the other fat-eating mice. But it averted the high levels of glucose and insulin in the bloodstream, which are warning signs of diabetes, and it kept the mice's livers at normal size.

Even more striking, the substance sharply extended the mice's lifetimes. Those fed resveratrol along with the high- fat diet died many months later than the mice on high fat alone, and at the same rate as mice on a standard healthy diet. They had all the pleasures of gluttony but paid none of the price. [emphasis mine]

Scientists have long known that a moderate intake of alcohol, and red wine in particular, is associated with a lowered risk of heart disease and other benefits. More recently, scientists began to suspect resveratrol had particularly powerful effects and began investigating its role in lifespan.

Unfortunately, the amounts of resveratrol they fed these mice would require between 700-1500 BOTTLES of red wine a day to mimic in humans, but researchers believe more moderate doses would show the same effect. Researchers also have some preliminary results to indicate that nonstandard synthetic compounds that mimic the same gene activation as resveratrol will be necessary. They are already fairly sure of the genes which are affected: SIRTs. Results on human metabolism will be available next year.

An interesting side note is that the FDA doesn't approve life-extended drugs, because it doesn't view death as a disease (unfortunately). Therefore, the researchers are hoping the resveratrol or resveratrol mimics will help treat diabetes and related liver diseases in order to garner FDA approval.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Health

Prof. Witmer on Unchained Radio

Prof. Witmer's talk on Christian Presuppositionalism (.pdf of talk) caught the attention of Gene Cook, who runs "Unchained Radio", a Christian radio show that promotes this quasi-philosophy. They invited Prof. Witmer to call in on their "atheist hour" they have every week, and he graciously obliged. Download the .mp3 and listen for yourself.

I'll be printing up a partial transcript to highlight the best parts of the dialogue, and will link back to it here.
________________
Technorati tags: presuppositionalism

My Last Post on Politics (for a bit)

Now that Allen is out and Webb is in, now that Ken Mehlman is outed and so is Ted Haggard, the first order of business for the Dems to win my trust is simple: kick Jefferson out on his corrupt ass.

Louisiana voters, please vote for Karen Carter. Visit and donate at Karen Carter for Congress.
________________
Technorati tags: Politics

Ruse Had to Obey Me on 10/31

Michael Ruse may have been a priest (image) on Halloween, but I was the pope (full-size image); thus he had to submit to my authority that day.
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Humor