Counter-response to Janssen
A Counter-response to Wes Janssen
by C. R. Drost
by C. R. Drost
Summary/Introduction
I wrote an earlier submission as a commentary on Wes Janssen's writing. It was far more stand-alone than a response, and was meant to be viewed with some lightness in heart. Paul Jacobsen informed me of a lengthy emotional response from Janssen that was full of ranting and virility. (The response kept going on and on!) I feel that he has taken the point a bit too much to heart. So I think I should offer a counter-response to his response, but not to "attack" him in any way... rather to give his ideas a way to grow. (And, from the response, his ideas definitely need to grow.)
In the response, Janssen was more than a little opposed to my summaries. Because he was so irritated, I will conduct my counter-response in a more direct form. If he wants to continue responding, he may. I am not sure that I will counter-respond to those, if his stance hasn't grown by then. If his thoughts don't mature, then there is no point in a counter-counter-counter-response to a counter-counter-response to a counter-response to a response to a commentary on the third issue of a debate between him and Paul Jacobsen.
An easy way for him to begin would be to make his own arguments, instead of citing authorities. If you bothered to read Janssen's response to me, you would need thorough knowledge of the works of Kant, Hawking, and Augustine to understand what his points were. I simply don't think that this makes a valuable resource to the reader, whether they plan to evangelize or are simply interested in the question.
I also believe that Janssen needs to be more aware of his audience. Throughout the essay I will lightheartedly criticise him along the lines of "not thinking that there are other people." He acknowledges Jacobsen and I, plus a bunch of authorities, but he completely forgets his audience. Were these private messages, I would just start e-mailing with him. These things are public-forum, and there is an independent audience.
If a reader attempts to recreate Janssen's arguments in a debate without knowing the bulk of the supporting material, they would invariably lose an argument when someone says "hey, could you be more specific?"
With these themes in mind, let the counter-response begin.
I wrote an earlier submission as a commentary on Wes Janssen's writing. It was far more stand-alone than a response, and was meant to be viewed with some lightness in heart. Paul Jacobsen informed me of a lengthy emotional response from Janssen that was full of ranting and virility. (The response kept going on and on!) I feel that he has taken the point a bit too much to heart. So I think I should offer a counter-response to his response, but not to "attack" him in any way... rather to give his ideas a way to grow. (And, from the response, his ideas definitely need to grow.)
In the response, Janssen was more than a little opposed to my summaries. Because he was so irritated, I will conduct my counter-response in a more direct form. If he wants to continue responding, he may. I am not sure that I will counter-respond to those, if his stance hasn't grown by then. If his thoughts don't mature, then there is no point in a counter-counter-counter-response to a counter-counter-response to a counter-response to a response to a commentary on the third issue of a debate between him and Paul Jacobsen.
An easy way for him to begin would be to make his own arguments, instead of citing authorities. If you bothered to read Janssen's response to me, you would need thorough knowledge of the works of Kant, Hawking, and Augustine to understand what his points were. I simply don't think that this makes a valuable resource to the reader, whether they plan to evangelize or are simply interested in the question.
I also believe that Janssen needs to be more aware of his audience. Throughout the essay I will lightheartedly criticise him along the lines of "not thinking that there are other people." He acknowledges Jacobsen and I, plus a bunch of authorities, but he completely forgets his audience. Were these private messages, I would just start e-mailing with him. These things are public-forum, and there is an independent audience.
If a reader attempts to recreate Janssen's arguments in a debate without knowing the bulk of the supporting material, they would invariably lose an argument when someone says "hey, could you be more specific?"
With these themes in mind, let the counter-response begin.
counter-response.
Response to C.R. Drost, by Wes Janssen:
In discussions such as these it is too often the case that one or both of the arguers indulges in 'talking past' the opposing arguer, presumably thinking that his own points are too significant to be overcome or too definitively relevant to 'listen' to the countermanding argument(s). |
Conceded, I did "talk past" you. My article, as a commentary, was not addressed to you. Of course, I do hope you realize that there are more people in this world than simply you. But since you were peeved by it, I will speak to you directly in this response. I do have to ask you to not take my commentary personally. I simply thought that more people than Wes Janssen are capable of reading, and will be reading on Paul's site.
I have sometimes caught myself doing this, Mr. Jacobsen has done this, and you do no better. The statements that you have submitted to Mr. Jacobsen's site appeal to a couple of rather standard arguments of dogmatic "skepticism". With all due respect, I fear that I cannot be very kind to these arguments. If I mischaracterize them, and I try not to by citing your specific arguments, then I should apologize in advance. I certainly cannot mischaracterize your arguments as egregiously as you have misrepresented mine, as we shall see in what follows. The first thing we might do is to recognize sloganeering and appeals to the ad hominem for what they are, and thereafter try to avoid them.
|
*shrug* Dogmatic skepticism is all we have to keep us from insanity. Since you have made this point, you should probably look at the first paragraph of my original commentary again. I speak of skepticism as a sort of complement to belief. If belief is dogmatic in nature, then skepticism as its complement is dogmatic in nature. But moreover, I have argued that both are less "dogmatic" and more intuitive.
I must question your application of the word "dogmatism." Throughout the original debate and in this response you have used the comment as if there was a stigma to being dogmatic. A dogma is merely an established thought or way of thinking. I believe that skepticism is well established: for we all know what it means to be skeptical. And I believe that skepticism is a way of thinking. Is this horrible? No. Have you characterized it as horrible? Yes.
Later you talk about the horrors of a methodology where you "define away any inconvenient difficulty." I believe that you yourself are trying to do this by labeling things as "dogma." And quite certainly, you have made yourself guilty of the "sloganeering" that you so hate.
"Appeals to the ad hominem" suggests that you don't know what ad hominem means. I'll treat this more later, when you deal with it later. Ad hominem is not a noun, and it is not something that you appeal to--rather, it is a fallacy (the fallacy of ad hominem, or argumentum ad hominem) that you commit.
Is skepticism dogmatic? Wes, you must admit that day-to-day, you have to disbelieve thousands of crazy things that you could believe are going to happen. Any time you use your imagination, this "dogmatism" (skepticism) saves you from insanity. I am assuming that you don't believe you can fly, and that at some point you have imagined being able to fly. Failing that, I implore you to imagine being able to fly. If you do not apply some form of dogmatic skepticism, you will conclude your ability to fly. In the odd event that you make these conclusions, I implore you to test them to your satisfaction.
I must question your application of the word "dogmatism." Throughout the original debate and in this response you have used the comment as if there was a stigma to being dogmatic. A dogma is merely an established thought or way of thinking. I believe that skepticism is well established: for we all know what it means to be skeptical. And I believe that skepticism is a way of thinking. Is this horrible? No. Have you characterized it as horrible? Yes.
Later you talk about the horrors of a methodology where you "define away any inconvenient difficulty." I believe that you yourself are trying to do this by labeling things as "dogma." And quite certainly, you have made yourself guilty of the "sloganeering" that you so hate.
"Appeals to the ad hominem" suggests that you don't know what ad hominem means. I'll treat this more later, when you deal with it later. Ad hominem is not a noun, and it is not something that you appeal to--rather, it is a fallacy (the fallacy of ad hominem, or argumentum ad hominem) that you commit.
Is skepticism dogmatic? Wes, you must admit that day-to-day, you have to disbelieve thousands of crazy things that you could believe are going to happen. Any time you use your imagination, this "dogmatism" (skepticism) saves you from insanity. I am assuming that you don't believe you can fly, and that at some point you have imagined being able to fly. Failing that, I implore you to imagine being able to fly. If you do not apply some form of dogmatic skepticism, you will conclude your ability to fly. In the odd event that you make these conclusions, I implore you to test them to your satisfaction.
From a Nazi prison, Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote of dealing with the ardent dogmatist: ". . . One feels in fact, when talking to him, that one is dealing not with the man himself, but with slogans, catchwords and the like, which have taken hold of him. He is under a spell, he is blinded..." Such a spell has ever gripped the common "skepticism" (we will get to the "slogans and catch words" shortly).
|
I will respond to these "slogans, catchwords, and the like" when they come around. However, the Nazi implications are not appreciated. I am quite kind to both Jews and homosexuals, thank you very much.
A sober skepticism is less opposed to the idea that a given conclusion might be better indicated than a contrary conclusion, than it is opposed to strident dogmatism.
|
This sentence is difficult to parse. Let me attempt to elucidate, for people who are neither me nor Janssen. He might have meant, "Skepticism favors a conclusion over its opposite more than it favors dogmatism." He might also have meant, "Skepticism is less opposed to the idea that some conclusions are better evidenced, than it is opposed to dogmatism." Now, Janssen, the first one is not correct as a general rule (it would depend on the conclusion and its contrary); the second one is correct because, at least in this world it seems like different views have different evidence. You may take your pick on what you meant. Neither was particularly lucid.
Perhaps, Wes, you are simply attempting to say that skepticism and dogmatism are constantly opposed. Not so. Skepticism will go with established thoughts all the time. As an example, few are skeptical of the Sun rising tomorrow. The belief that the Sun will rise tomorrow is "strident dogmatism," and skepticism has no problem with it.
Perhaps, Wes, you are simply attempting to say that skepticism and dogmatism are constantly opposed. Not so. Skepticism will go with established thoughts all the time. As an example, few are skeptical of the Sun rising tomorrow. The belief that the Sun will rise tomorrow is "strident dogmatism," and skepticism has no problem with it.
You say of skepticism, "it is far more than ['a useful tool'], it is an examination into our own uncertainty, an allowance of our own uncertainty to take precedence over belief." In what manner is this "examination", this "allowance", not a useful tool (you say that it is "more")? This is not a trivial question; it is begged by your statement, one that implies reference to something "far more" significant than a methodological 'tool' of inquiry. If skepticism is "far more than" a means of testing and refining one's understanding, what "more" is it?
|
Well, I happen to feel that examinations are of a greater (in some abstract sense) scope than tools. I don't know why you're trying to be confrontational. It's almost as if you've seen an uninvited commentary on your paper and you've immediately set the hounds a-chase, as it were, without bothering to seek the fox.
But to be concise: examinations are entertaining. Tools are not necessarily so. Hence skepticism, which is an examination, is more than a tool. Why you're pressing the point is, as always, beyond me. You have taken poetic words and attempted to rend them apart in some hope that it will make a confused counterpoint to my commentary.
But to be concise: examinations are entertaining. Tools are not necessarily so. Hence skepticism, which is an examination, is more than a tool. Why you're pressing the point is, as always, beyond me. You have taken poetic words and attempted to rend them apart in some hope that it will make a confused counterpoint to my commentary.
This "allowance of our own uncertainty to take precedence over belief" is a philosophical 'way of life' perhaps? If a philosophy, a philosophy of what? Deferred judgment? Epistemology, noetics, logic, ethics -- all are so much quicksand if we're talking about a belief that belief is unwarranted. If conclusions (presumably including tentative conclusions) are not acceptable, then what is to be done with such a conclusion itself? If belief lacking universal or mathematical "proof" is unwarranted, what is to be done with such a non-provable belief itself? In this view, "skepticism" is simple dogma.
|
You obviously got very emotional upon reading my paper. I am glad that it did that.
Skepticism is dogmatic in the same ways that belief is dogmatic. I don't see why you insist on implying that it is not. In opposition to those that will believe without evidence, there are those that will disbelieve in the same setting. To complain that epistemology, noetics, logic, and ethics do not help us in these cases... well, such a complaint is true, but not worthwhile.
It's almost as if, in your paragraph, you're trying to make the case that we should believe everything even without evidence. I'm sure you see why I disagree. Again, think of flying. You'll get the picture. Or you'll fall off a bridge.
Skepticism is dogmatic in the same ways that belief is dogmatic. I don't see why you insist on implying that it is not. In opposition to those that will believe without evidence, there are those that will disbelieve in the same setting. To complain that epistemology, noetics, logic, and ethics do not help us in these cases... well, such a complaint is true, but not worthwhile.
It's almost as if, in your paragraph, you're trying to make the case that we should believe everything even without evidence. I'm sure you see why I disagree. Again, think of flying. You'll get the picture. Or you'll fall off a bridge.
As a skeptic of the purely methodological variety, my observation of the absolute/dogmatic variety is similar to that articulated by Kant. If skepticism is "more" than methodology it is dogma, and as such, paralytic, and far less than a useful tool.
|
I must ask what your method does. Does it purport to create evidence in the world of the unevidenced? Or does it deny evidence in the world of the evidenced? Skepticism in the face of evidence is a misapplied form of the dogma. If you jump off the bridge, you have evidence, and you should not start throwing it away in skepticism about flight.
There is something to be said about tolerances of evidence... as an example, I do not believe in UFOs because the evidence is not enough to support the absurdity of the claim. But I'm assuming that, since you apparently use skepticism methodologically, you are well aware of such vague nuances.
Still, what does your methodology do? You have yourself said "Skepticism can lead us toward conclusions, but it cannot quite reach them." So I'm curious as to what conclusions your methodology reaches.
Does it paralyze me? No. Belief can be as paralyzing as skepticism, but I take neither to their extreme.
There is something to be said about tolerances of evidence... as an example, I do not believe in UFOs because the evidence is not enough to support the absurdity of the claim. But I'm assuming that, since you apparently use skepticism methodologically, you are well aware of such vague nuances.
Still, what does your methodology do? You have yourself said "Skepticism can lead us toward conclusions, but it cannot quite reach them." So I'm curious as to what conclusions your methodology reaches.
Does it paralyze me? No. Belief can be as paralyzing as skepticism, but I take neither to their extreme.
Slogans and catchwords: "The God of the Gaps".
Your foray into a "God of the Gaps" characterization opens with this: "Wes Janssen has an unfortunate tendency to say 'Nothing scientific explains this phenomenon, so God is responsible.'" Not only do I not have a "tendency to say" such a goofy thing, I simply have never said it. Nor would I ever, for reasons I will outline below. (My arguments instead tend toward "where science best explains the world, we find that it indicates God is responsible," which is quite opposite your characterization). |
First off, you will say precisely that later, and I will deal with it when it comes.
It is true that I put in quotes something that characterizes you, but that you have never said openly. You have said such things as, "Were the gluon force anything but precisely what it is, no atomic nuclei would be possible, the universe would be a cold void, you and I would not exist," and "The odds against the mechanical 'creation' of DNA remain incalculably stupendous. The odds against the mechanical 'creation' of photosynthetic systems, or sexual reproduction, or human intelligence, remain incalculably stupendous. / I am often curious as to how a supposed "skeptical" mind can callously, even flippantly, discount such powerful numbers." I believe I can characterize this as "Nothing scientific appears to explain these phenomena."
Now, it's true, I don't remember you saying that God is responsible simply because of this. However, it was implicit in the paper that this conclusion was being drawn. If you didn't want to conclude God's action in these matters, you should have been more specific.
As it stands, the quotes above, if they are attempts to support a thesis of God's existence, make an argument of "Nothing scientific appears to explain these phenomena, therefore God is responsible." Hence, I stand by my characterization.
As far as, "where science best explains the world, we find that it indicates God is responsible"... Science well explains the breaking of a board with my hand. Does it indicate that God is responsible?
Did you think before you replied?
It is true that I put in quotes something that characterizes you, but that you have never said openly. You have said such things as, "Were the gluon force anything but precisely what it is, no atomic nuclei would be possible, the universe would be a cold void, you and I would not exist," and "The odds against the mechanical 'creation' of DNA remain incalculably stupendous. The odds against the mechanical 'creation' of photosynthetic systems, or sexual reproduction, or human intelligence, remain incalculably stupendous. / I am often curious as to how a supposed "skeptical" mind can callously, even flippantly, discount such powerful numbers." I believe I can characterize this as "Nothing scientific appears to explain these phenomena."
Now, it's true, I don't remember you saying that God is responsible simply because of this. However, it was implicit in the paper that this conclusion was being drawn. If you didn't want to conclude God's action in these matters, you should have been more specific.
As it stands, the quotes above, if they are attempts to support a thesis of God's existence, make an argument of "Nothing scientific appears to explain these phenomena, therefore God is responsible." Hence, I stand by my characterization.
As far as, "where science best explains the world, we find that it indicates God is responsible"... Science well explains the breaking of a board with my hand. Does it indicate that God is responsible?
Did you think before you replied?
A "God of the Gaps" characterization appeals to a certain completeness or equivalent adequacy to our understanding in identifiable areas. In your words: "These arguments come from there being a gap in our understanding." Such an appeal has no foundation in either science or theology. It presumes non-gaps (areas of complete human knowledge which have eliminated God's presence verifiably) which can thereby define "gaps".
|
It is evident that you have fundamentally missed the idea behind the characterization itself. The fundamental idea behind "God of the Gaps" is simply to note that saying "I don't know what caused it" does not mean "God caused it." The "gap" is your absence of knowledge. The claim made is that the gap leads to knowledge about God. Calling such a claim "God-of-the-Gaps" refers to the claim's inadequecy to evidence God's existence or action.
With that, on to the meat of the paragraph:
While I understand the desire to define something by its contrast, we must examine this for a second. Are there gaps in our understanding? I certainly think there are. So who cares if there are "non-gaps"? Are they necessary to say that there are gaps? No. Might they exist as a necessary consequence? Perhaps. Does it matter whether there are non-gaps, if we know that there are gaps? Absolutely not.
In blind assertion, you say that to characterize something as "God of the Gaps" assumes that there are non-gaps. It assumes that there are gaps; no more, no less.
With that, on to the meat of the paragraph:
While I understand the desire to define something by its contrast, we must examine this for a second. Are there gaps in our understanding? I certainly think there are. So who cares if there are "non-gaps"? Are they necessary to say that there are gaps? No. Might they exist as a necessary consequence? Perhaps. Does it matter whether there are non-gaps, if we know that there are gaps? Absolutely not.
In blind assertion, you say that to characterize something as "God of the Gaps" assumes that there are non-gaps. It assumes that there are gaps; no more, no less.
Neither pure science nor pure theology can presume anything of the sort. In Towzer's words, "The 'why' of natural law is the living 'voice' of God immanent in His creation." And that the "speaking Voice" of God is "indeed the only force in nature." Think of this in terms of Hawking's statement, "What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe." Thus God is seen (whether by theism or the agnostic Hawking) as both nature's present author of instruction and warrant for existence.
|
I noted that you would say precisely these statements. I will be more emotional in my counter-response than I feel about the issue, for the sake of eloquence.
Oh, COME ON, Janssen. What happened to not saying "nothing scientific explains this phenomenon, so God is responsible"? I thought you would never ("nor would I ever") say something like this, and two paragraphs down, I hear you support, "The usual approach of science...cannot answer the questions... Thus God is seen..." What did I say before? "Nothing scientific explains it, therefore God is responsible."
You may not like the characterization. However, it is completely valid. This is the exact essence of what you said.
Oh, COME ON, Janssen. What happened to not saying "nothing scientific explains this phenomenon, so God is responsible"? I thought you would never ("nor would I ever") say something like this, and two paragraphs down, I hear you support, "The usual approach of science...cannot answer the questions... Thus God is seen..." What did I say before? "Nothing scientific explains it, therefore God is responsible."
You may not like the characterization. However, it is completely valid. This is the exact essence of what you said.
I do not believe that in all of theism there is an opposing view. In this view, universal to theism, where is the non-"gap", that 'place' from which human genius has eliminated God? Obviously, human knowledge, scientific or otherwise, cannot define a non-gap, much less identify one. I'll treat this a bit further, so as to make this as clear as I can. If there can be no non-gaps to define gaps, there can be no gaps.
|
First, you require gaps and non-gaps to be defined by contrast. I think I've already pointed out why this doesn't need to be done: We know that we don't understand everything, and we know that we understand some things. Hence, there are gaps in our understanding. Those gaps cannot be used to evidence God's existence. It is almost directly deductively wrong by definition of "gap in our understanding," and it is certainly inductively wrong.
To wit, gaps DEFINITELY exist. I can tell you right now that I have NO CLUE how to cure cancer. I simply do not understand how to do it. Thus, there is a gap in my understanding. Does it mean that God exists? No. I also have no clue how the universe came to be. Does it mean God exists? No. Are there gaps? Yes.
To wit, gaps DEFINITELY exist. I can tell you right now that I have NO CLUE how to cure cancer. I simply do not understand how to do it. Thus, there is a gap in my understanding. Does it mean that God exists? No. I also have no clue how the universe came to be. Does it mean God exists? No. Are there gaps? Yes.
Human genius is confined, at best, to a few (or many, if that characterization makes one feel better) gaps in the vast expanse of our ignorance.
|
Yes, that's right. You just said, "a few (or many, if that characterization makes one feel better)". And I must ask, what does it mean?
In court: "The defendant was guilty (or innocent, if that characterization makes one feel better)". Is it a few, or is it many? Are we talking 2, or are we talking 2 trillion?
To get to the substance: Apparently, human genius is confined to gaps in our vast expanse of ignorance. Yep. Everything that you know is actually just a gap in what you don't know. Why is it important? Yeah, it's not.
In court: "The defendant was guilty (or innocent, if that characterization makes one feel better)". Is it a few, or is it many? Are we talking 2, or are we talking 2 trillion?
To get to the substance: Apparently, human genius is confined to gaps in our vast expanse of ignorance. Yep. Everything that you know is actually just a gap in what you don't know. Why is it important? Yeah, it's not.
If human "knowledge" can constitute something real that we have claimed from our antecedent but somehow lessened ignorance, we must admit to a human 'genius'/'knowledge' of the gaps. Logically, God cannot be so confined.
|
Lesson on useless adjectives: If turtle "knowledge" can constitute something real that we have claimed from our antecedent but somehow lessened ignorance, we must admit to a turtle 'genius'/'knowledge' of the gaps.
To be more serious, I have no clue what you are unchaining God from. Ok, so we know about the gaps, I'll admit that. Turtle knowledge can constitute something real. Ok. And from your worldview before, it's not really knowledge, but it's a lack-of-not-knowing. OK. Now, uh, what was the confinement on God?
To be more serious, I have no clue what you are unchaining God from. Ok, so we know about the gaps, I'll admit that. Turtle knowledge can constitute something real. Ok. And from your worldview before, it's not really knowledge, but it's a lack-of-not-knowing. OK. Now, uh, what was the confinement on God?
Your "God of the Gaps" is reprised for your summation: "It irritates me to see the 'God of the Gaps' argument, which has too many holes in it to work (and worse, the 'ontological argument,' which is flawed from its outset)." I make neither argument and might more truthfully offer that it is rather irritating to be falsely represented.
|
You have argued that God exists because of our lack of understanding. This is God-of-the-Gaps. You have not, to my knowledge, made the ontological argument. That was why the reference was in parenthesis. It was an incidental reference.
I would like to take a moment to remind you that there are more people in the world than just you. Simply because I mention the ontological argument being flawed, it does not mean that I am blaming you for its flaws. There are other people. The world is a big place.
I would like to take a moment to remind you that there are more people in the world than just you. Simply because I mention the ontological argument being flawed, it does not mean that I am blaming you for its flaws. There are other people. The world is a big place.
There are obvious reasons why a theist would not suggest that God has been, or ever could be, relegated to the gaps in human genius. The "God of the Gaps" mantra belongs mainly to the slogan collection of the dogmatic "skeptic".
|
It's true. Only skeptics tell others that they're God-of-the-Gaps-ing, as it were. The "mantra" (omm.) does not tend to be used by anyone else. However, I must point out, if you are upset by your own suggestion that God exists precisely because of things which are no more than gaps in human genius, you should probably resolve that with yourself before you post it online.
If we are to claim that God is relegated to (or manifested primarily in) the "gaps" in our knowledge, then it must be our knowledge that defines the gap. There is no "gap" without non-gaps to bound or define a gap, much as there is no valley without relatively elevated lands (non-valley) to bound and define it.
|
I really think that you're just trying to be clever and you're falling on ass while doing so. You have used a gap in our understanding to say that God exists, the argument is therefore called a "God-of-the-Gaps" argument. Nobody says, "Your God is a God of the Gaps--Your God reigns only in those spaces which we know less about."
You're treating it as if it is. You mention straw men elsewhere. Here is your straw man. Enjoy beating him, but remember that it is an immaterial enjoyment.
At this, I have to accuse you of trying to mislead your readers. A "Gap" refers to something which we don't know. A "God of the Gaps" argument is an argument which attempts to use a "Gap" to give good reasons that we should believe in God. In misleading the reader, you say things like this:
You're treating it as if it is. You mention straw men elsewhere. Here is your straw man. Enjoy beating him, but remember that it is an immaterial enjoyment.
At this, I have to accuse you of trying to mislead your readers. A "Gap" refers to something which we don't know. A "God of the Gaps" argument is an argument which attempts to use a "Gap" to give good reasons that we should believe in God. In misleading the reader, you say things like this:
Again, where exactly in all our accumulated knowledge, have we excluded God? We find no "gap" to which we can confine God because we find no non-gap from which we can exclude God.
|
Whereas "gap" is not a way to confine God; it is simply something which we don't know. You're misleading your audience.
It seems to me that any theist, regardless of his understanding of creation, must understand God to be the external 'guarantor' of "the true Schrvdinger equation", so to speak. That is, the author of the (non-material) mathematical axioms that both instruct and reveal nature. The gap/non-gap construct has no relation to an entity that can never be excluded. Both classical and process theology understand God as such an author and guarantor. No gaps, no non-gaps, no boundaries, just irritating slogans. One must notice that you decry the employment of scientific quantification in teleological arguments (we will treat this also) and that you also decry what you claim to be the absence of scientific quantification (your very own irritating "God of the Gaps"). Your stated position is that arguments are to be dismissed if they appeal to science and dismissed if they do not appeal to science. An argument that examines quantitative inference must either include those quantities or not include them (although I'm very uncertain as to how the latter approach could be reasonably constructed). I see no middle ground in which data is to be neither included nor excluded. Apparently any/all teleological or theistic consideration that relates to the physical world must be outlawed (by virtue of either referencing or not referencing quantification). That's convenient. We certainly detect a heavy aspect of the ad hominem in your rulings. My own approach is certainly to try and make account of what we find and what we think we know. Many scientists, on all sides of these issues, do the same. For example, the astronomer Chet Raymo, a self-proclaimed skeptic, suggests that empiricism is the only sound basis of epistemological judgments, characterizing theism as "airy-fairy" (Skeptics and True Believers, 1998). While theoretical particle physicist Gerald Schroeder, a theist, observes this: "The solidity of iron is actually 99.9999999999999 percent startlingly vacuous space made to feel solid by ethereal fields of force having no material reality at all" (The Hidden Face of God, 2001). The point he is here in the process of making is that matter and energy, the stock and trade of philosophical materialism, are themselves materially quite "airy-fairy". Reductionistic science leads us to specific information. The appeal here is to what science has discovered about the quantum world, not to the unknown. Nature is ultimately reduced to ethereal mathematical axioms, in Schroeder's words, an "immaterial wisdom". I will guess that if you don't like his conclusion you will want to attribute it to his ignorance of something you posit might be known someday and that you would presumably find more agreeable. That would be a very personally convenient and a comfortably 'slippery' position I suppose. But it essentially denies the possibility of knowledge, even in principle. After all, the same contention might be offered against the "knowledge" that you may hope to one day find agreeable.
|
To the Janssen-Drost readers: If you look at the actual response, almost everything is in rant blocks this long. Above I have "cubed" it for you as a father cubes food for his young child. If you want to actually deal his responses critically, be aware that he rants a bit.
Now back to our show.
Yes, Wes, you just said that theology was nothing but "...just irritating slogans." Also, y'all will notice that y'all reverted, in y'all's long rant, to the royal we. Y'all will do this later as well. Do you have a friend that you are representing? Or are you legitimate royalty?
You said that my attacks are ad hominem. As with before, do you even know what this means? It means against the person. Did I say that you were evil? No. So did I argue against the person? No. If you want to substitute an alternate meaning of ad hominem, fine, but don't make the claim without the backing.
In fact, the only one to engage in argumentum ad hominem was you, with the reference that implicitly compared the skeptic (e.g. me) to a Nazi.
You earlier said that you'd try to stick with my statements as much as possible, but then when it came down to it ("Your stated position is..."), there were no quotes to be had. Shame. Weren't you just being venomous about characterizing? Tsk tsk.
To be more analytical:
You talked about "airy-fairy" things which are, to be specific, electromagnetism. You also didn't mention electromagnetism anywhere in here. If you knew the fundamental ideas behind the workings, you didn't mention them. I will not be so rude as to suggest that you've avoided a college level education in physics... besides, the point is immaterial. To respond to your quote, I won't attribute it to ignorance; in fact, it's very well known. It's electromagnetism, which is caused by charge. If you want to say that electrical charge evidences God, I will not characterize it as God of the Gaps. But I will look at you funny.
Finally, I would like to take another jab at you (just in fun) about this one: Schroeder gets his percents right.
Now back to our show.
Yes, Wes, you just said that theology was nothing but "...just irritating slogans." Also, y'all will notice that y'all reverted, in y'all's long rant, to the royal we. Y'all will do this later as well. Do you have a friend that you are representing? Or are you legitimate royalty?
You said that my attacks are ad hominem. As with before, do you even know what this means? It means against the person. Did I say that you were evil? No. So did I argue against the person? No. If you want to substitute an alternate meaning of ad hominem, fine, but don't make the claim without the backing.
In fact, the only one to engage in argumentum ad hominem was you, with the reference that implicitly compared the skeptic (e.g. me) to a Nazi.
You earlier said that you'd try to stick with my statements as much as possible, but then when it came down to it ("Your stated position is..."), there were no quotes to be had. Shame. Weren't you just being venomous about characterizing? Tsk tsk.
To be more analytical:
You talked about "airy-fairy" things which are, to be specific, electromagnetism. You also didn't mention electromagnetism anywhere in here. If you knew the fundamental ideas behind the workings, you didn't mention them. I will not be so rude as to suggest that you've avoided a college level education in physics... besides, the point is immaterial. To respond to your quote, I won't attribute it to ignorance; in fact, it's very well known. It's electromagnetism, which is caused by charge. If you want to say that electrical charge evidences God, I will not characterize it as God of the Gaps. But I will look at you funny.
Finally, I would like to take another jab at you (just in fun) about this one: Schroeder gets his percents right.
"Proof" and that which "we cannot verify."
You speak a great deal of proof/proving/disproving/verification. I count at least nine such references in your statements. This begs some consideration. You say, "But to be more true to Janssen's writing, halfway down the paragraph he notes that science can not disprove a God-theory for creation. He fails to realize that THIS DOES NOT MAKE ANY STEPS TOWARD PROVING GOD." Here, after claiming an aspiration to "be more true to Janssen's writing," you launch directly into all those capital letters about "PROVING GOD". "Fails to realize"? "PROVING GOD"? I think we're in need of a cow to feed this to. I have never claimed to "make any steps toward proving God." |
Oh. Sorry. Thought you were being innovative. Trying to rationalize faith in God and all. If you're not, that's cool too. So you don't infer God's existence, then? *shrug* nothing off my back.
It's going to be quite evident through the rest of this paper how much you've twisted the simple word "proof." Mind you, I didn't say "mathematical proof." If I drop a stapler, it is proof that stuff falls. Is it a mathematical proof? No. It could be a logical proof with some qualifiers, but as it stands, it is not a logical proof. No, I mean good old proof as in "a reason to believe". When I say "proving God," I mean the good old meaning of "good reason to believe in God." If you don't like it, fine. But if you were still using my words, you'd be saying "I have never claimed to make any steps towards providing good reasons to believe in God." And if you actually meant that, then I'd have to respectfully disagree with you.
The lesson? Don't twist others' words to mean things which the other person doesn't mean, but which you want them to mean. Again, you are guilty of attempting to mislead your audience.
It's going to be quite evident through the rest of this paper how much you've twisted the simple word "proof." Mind you, I didn't say "mathematical proof." If I drop a stapler, it is proof that stuff falls. Is it a mathematical proof? No. It could be a logical proof with some qualifiers, but as it stands, it is not a logical proof. No, I mean good old proof as in "a reason to believe". When I say "proving God," I mean the good old meaning of "good reason to believe in God." If you don't like it, fine. But if you were still using my words, you'd be saying "I have never claimed to make any steps towards providing good reasons to believe in God." And if you actually meant that, then I'd have to respectfully disagree with you.
The lesson? Don't twist others' words to mean things which the other person doesn't mean, but which you want them to mean. Again, you are guilty of attempting to mislead your audience.
When I speak, for example of a calculated probability of no better than one over infinity, I speak of a significant inference, not a proof. Your arguments against what you refer to as my 'proofs' are your arguments against your straw man characterizations. The existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved, not if the standard is empirical verification or logical completeness as the human mind might grasp it. Likewise, the nature of God cannot be proved or disproved. If an entity not contained by the material world lent itself to empirical verification -- an idea that is itself not logically complete -- then theistic "faith" would not be possible. I have never argued that God could be so proven. This is not a point of contention. If a proof is to be unassailable, in the sense that certain mathematical axioms are generally seen as being unassailable, then very little can be proved. As any logician can tell you, we cannot "prove" that Abraham Lincoln ever existed. (If you want to say that we can, I will have to take you to task on that.) Mathematical proof does not lend itself to very many propositions. Of course, given a dispassionate examination of the evidence, which is to say 'inference', it is more reasonable to conclude that Lincoln existed than to believe he did not. I have obviously referred many times to probability and have compared explanations and theories as to their comparative feasibilities. This is not only the appropriate way to conduct most considerations, it is generally the only way. Individuals charged with crimes are not proven -- in a classically logical or mathematical sense -- to be guilty or not guilty. Such judgments are rendered by employment of a "preponderance of evidence" standard. This is, in fact, the standard by which you probably "know" your birthday. Attorneys like to talk about what they have "proved" and disproved, but they speak only of reasonable inference. "Proof," in a purely logical or mathematical sense, is an absurd standard in most considerations. Please look again at my arguments, I do not claim anything so irrational as to have "proven" anything. I leave that to the F. Lee Bailey's of the world. If we cannot strive to be honest about an adversarial argument, then all is straw.
|
And there's the next big rant. You twist the word proof into something which you can yell at, and then you yell at it.
I can prove Lincoln's existence. Do the history books record his existence? All of the ones that cover that time period. Is that good evidence? Yes. Is there a good reason to believe that Lincoln existed? Sure. If you insist on living with such horrible uses of the word "proof," please do not bastardize the word for the rest of the world (Yes, yes, Janssen, for the third time, there ARE other people around here).
I can prove Lincoln's existence. Do the history books record his existence? All of the ones that cover that time period. Is that good evidence? Yes. Is there a good reason to believe that Lincoln existed? Sure. If you insist on living with such horrible uses of the word "proof," please do not bastardize the word for the rest of the world (Yes, yes, Janssen, for the third time, there ARE other people around here).
We also notice your statement, "Nothing scientific explains this, so other explanations are not useful." Whether you have understood it as such or not, the statement and your recurring demand for proof resound of the Wittgensteinian standard known as the "verification principle."
|
Well, WE also notice your use of the royal we! So there!
To be a bit more to-the-point, I was trying to express a fundamental quality of science: That it puts stock exclusively in what is useful. If you can prove that doing a ritual in the Bible cures cancer, for example, then we will have a cure for cancer, and it will be scientific. Science will accept it simply because it cures cancer. When science finds something that is useful in these regards, it accepts it. It would accept the useful even if it didn't understand it; it has done so before, and it is constantly willing to do so. Hence, if something is unscientific, it is probably not very useful, because generally useful things are scientific.
Did I say anything about verification? No. Did you go into the following rant? Yes.
To be a bit more to-the-point, I was trying to express a fundamental quality of science: That it puts stock exclusively in what is useful. If you can prove that doing a ritual in the Bible cures cancer, for example, then we will have a cure for cancer, and it will be scientific. Science will accept it simply because it cures cancer. When science finds something that is useful in these regards, it accepts it. It would accept the useful even if it didn't understand it; it has done so before, and it is constantly willing to do so. Hence, if something is unscientific, it is probably not very useful, because generally useful things are scientific.
Did I say anything about verification? No. Did you go into the following rant? Yes.
The standard, simply stated, is that only empirically falsifiable statements are permitted potential "meaning" ("meaning" meaning essentially "grounding" to Wittgenstein). Positivism, which traces to Wittgenstein's principle, claims thus to reject metaphysics. All aesthetic, theological and ethical/moral judgments are proclaimed "meaningless." It turns out that many of the statements that are typically made in the course of the work of science are also judged "meaningless." Positivism denies both "reality" and "truth" because such concepts must contain metaphysical (thus "meaningless") judgments. Positivism claims that "the world" is only that which can be verified to be consistent with other allowed (similarly grounded) statements. Positivism, the would-be anti-metaphysic metaphysic, has obvious problems. The verification principle immediately fails to survive its own test. To say that only that which can be empirically verified has meaning, is not a falsifiable statement, it is a metaphysical judgment. Logical positivism's judgments concerning "meaning," must contain, by their own standard, no meaning. It is interesting that one of the few prominent thinkers of our day who calls himself a positivist, Stephen Hawking, is famous for his wanderings into metaphysics and for rather distancing himself from the verification principle where he sees that it simply must fail to be anything but convenient foolishness. Positivism is the gun at its own temple, and the verification principle is the bullet in its own brain. If your demand for "proof" is oriented to something other than the verification principle, we wonder what it is.
|
Again with the royal we, like a five year old who has just learned that you can do it. In any case, I've already explained that I just want proof. Good old fashioned proof. Nothing like what you seem to want.
However, to indulge you, if an idea cannot be tested, then results cannot be obtained, since results come from a test. If an idea cannot produce results, then it could not possibly be very useful--it is just an idea. And whether the idea is "true" or not, if it is not useful, why bother? What use do you plan to get out of something useless?
However, to indulge you, if an idea cannot be tested, then results cannot be obtained, since results come from a test. If an idea cannot produce results, then it could not possibly be very useful--it is just an idea. And whether the idea is "true" or not, if it is not useful, why bother? What use do you plan to get out of something useless?
Cosmology: "The very beginning."
You are correct to observe that exactly what happened at "the very beginning" is beyond the domain of human science. In terms of demanding verification or "proof" I suppose that you could deny that the big bang ever happened. If your standard for warrant is a kind of airtight "verification," then you would have to doubt the big bang scenario and perhaps you do, I don't know. |
Through this argument, you have been the only person to consider proof to be "a kind of airtight verification."
But some of us like to know/understand as much as we can.
Indeed, and this does not happen when you consider proof to be "a kind of airtight verification." So stop it.
This may reasonably involve conclusions that are not proved but are substantially inferred by the preponderance of evidence.
You mean, of course, that this may reasonably involve conclusions that are proven. Not your "proof," mind you. The rest of the world's "proof".
But some of us like to know/understand as much as we can.
Indeed, and this does not happen when you consider proof to be "a kind of airtight verification." So stop it.
This may reasonably involve conclusions that are not proved but are substantially inferred by the preponderance of evidence.
You mean, of course, that this may reasonably involve conclusions that are proven. Not your "proof," mind you. The rest of the world's "proof".
Regarding "the very beginning," it is not as if there are no inferences to be considered when we look at what science can treat mathematically, beginning at the so-called Planck moment, something greatly less than a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the creation event.
|
I agree that if the Big Bang happened, then the Planck moment probably went as predicted.
Scientific/mathematical information here is not "0" or "none", and is far from it. In principle, what is "known" here approaches mathematical proof much more closely than does your knowledge of your own birth date. And this is the quantification that I have cited, as have physicists and philosophers of nearly every stripe.
|
Quantification of what? God's existence? You rarely use the word.
Positivists (like Hawking) do this. Realists (like Penrose, Davies, etc) do this. To imply that the numbers I cite in this regard provide anything other than inferences about what happened that trillionth of a trillionth of a second before human science becomes possible, is again less than honest on your part.
|
*rolls eyes* Yeah, because you cite so many great important numbers. As far as "before human science becomes possible," what are you talking about? Please explain yourself thoroughly and not in rant form.
You again strike a blow to your own straw man. When, for example, Hawking concludes from what can be mathematically examined (we might use capital letters for "can be") in the early universe, he concludes there are but two inferences: the intent of God or the so-called weak anthropic principle (which is to say, we got lucky unexplainably -- "just because").
|
I distrust the things you have presented because you ignore some important things about probability. First, there is a significant question about whether you can assign probabilities to general events, especially in the past. Second, the classical definition of probability is the length of a set divided by the length of its sample space, and you have not offered anything vaguely like a sample space--a list of things that could happen. We simply do not have one. Perhaps Hawking treats this in his own papers, but you have not left a reference behind.
I could not characterize your treatment of the material as "thorough," given these notes.
Furthermore, you have yet to treat the weak anthropic principle. Agreed, Hawking says, "it is either A or B." You have said it is either A or B, now why do you immediately jump to "it must be A"?
While you may have responses to these, my point is merely that your treatment is not thorough.
I could not characterize your treatment of the material as "thorough," given these notes.
Furthermore, you have yet to treat the weak anthropic principle. Agreed, Hawking says, "it is either A or B." You have said it is either A or B, now why do you immediately jump to "it must be A"?
While you may have responses to these, my point is merely that your treatment is not thorough.
Hawking, raised an atheist and now a positivist, certainly does not reach this conclusion because he wants to. His conclusion here is not oriented to "0" information, as you have suggested. And it is not generally held to be a controversial conclusion, it is pretty much accepted, I might have cited another physicist, perhaps Paul Davies. You have complained that I attempt to make my points "sound scientific," at least as they relate to cosmology. The complaint itself sounds like an appeal to the ad hominem, something rather like 'look out folks, he's trying to pull a fast one here.' I concede that this characterization is mine but think it is conceptually accurate.
|
If his conclusion suffers from the faults described above, it is oriented to 0 information. If you're bad at relating his conclusion, then I don't know what his conclusion entails.
But to get back to the point, are you mentioning a lot of science? Yes! Are you doing so in a discussion with Mr. Jacobsen on the issue of whether God exists? Yes! Are you trying to make your points sound scientific? If the answer isn't yes, then I don't follow you. You are trying to make your case for God sound very scientific, are you not?
Science is birthed in experiment. If you want to present a God-experiment, fine, but until you do, stop trying to make your theology look scientific. The experiment, man, the experiment! Bring forth the footage of a man who asked God to strike him down by lightning and was so struck... or propose your own experiments and run them... or stop trying to make your theology look scientific.
As far as trying to make your theology look scientific, you immediately follow it up with this:
But to get back to the point, are you mentioning a lot of science? Yes! Are you doing so in a discussion with Mr. Jacobsen on the issue of whether God exists? Yes! Are you trying to make your points sound scientific? If the answer isn't yes, then I don't follow you. You are trying to make your case for God sound very scientific, are you not?
Science is birthed in experiment. If you want to present a God-experiment, fine, but until you do, stop trying to make your theology look scientific. The experiment, man, the experiment! Bring forth the footage of a man who asked God to strike him down by lightning and was so struck... or propose your own experiments and run them... or stop trying to make your theology look scientific.
As far as trying to make your theology look scientific, you immediately follow it up with this:
My arguments undoubtedly reflect my interests and my studies. I read a great deal of physics, philosophy, logic, and theology and would expect my arguments to reflect this.
|
Let's face it, the entire point of that last sentence was more or less to equate theology with physics, philosophy, and logic. This could not be done, because conclusions in physics especially, but also in philosophy and logic, do not generally have to deal with alternate physics, alternate philosophy, and alternate logic that is MARKEDLY different from them. And yet theology constantly has to deal with alternate theology that is markedly different. If there is one group reading the Bible, the Qu'ran, Wen-Tzu, and the Bhagavad Gita, then I would like to join that group. In the meantime, I have yet to see a multidisciplinary "theology" outside of some sociology.
But now you say that you've read a great deal of three topics. Presumably this is to imply that you are an authority in these matters. Perhaps you just meant this to say, "I just like these 4 topics." The effect was that of saying, "I know what I'm talking about and my opponent does not", to your readers.
As to whether you're an authority:
1) Physics: you don't know when electromagnetism is electromagnetism, or at least when you do know, you call it "airy-fairy". Suffice it to say you have more physics to learn.
2) Philosophy: The argument from authority is despised in modern philosophy, and so the "read a great deal of" argument would have been avoided if you had been all that much into philosophy. Suffice it to say you have more philosophy to learn.
3) Logic: You argue from ignorance, from authority; you argue by equivocation (proof and proof); you throw around "ad hominem" without knowing what it means; you say either-A-or-B and conclude A with no other statements. Suffice it to say that you have more logic to learn.
But now you say that you've read a great deal of three topics. Presumably this is to imply that you are an authority in these matters. Perhaps you just meant this to say, "I just like these 4 topics." The effect was that of saying, "I know what I'm talking about and my opponent does not", to your readers.
As to whether you're an authority:
1) Physics: you don't know when electromagnetism is electromagnetism, or at least when you do know, you call it "airy-fairy". Suffice it to say you have more physics to learn.
2) Philosophy: The argument from authority is despised in modern philosophy, and so the "read a great deal of" argument would have been avoided if you had been all that much into philosophy. Suffice it to say you have more philosophy to learn.
3) Logic: You argue from ignorance, from authority; you argue by equivocation (proof and proof); you throw around "ad hominem" without knowing what it means; you say either-A-or-B and conclude A with no other statements. Suffice it to say that you have more logic to learn.
I generally tend to cite sources, at least by name, even in informal discussions such as these. If I make mistakes in terms of science, those things can be cited specifically. Now, if I tried to sound say, musical, then I would be attempting deception!
|
As I noted, you are not leaving behind much in the way of references. But at least you finally started to take some quotes out of my commentary for the following paragraph.
Your "Causality" statements are, in your own word, arbitrary. But one has to notice your statement that the big bang might be somehow traced to "such an infinity of potential causes." Perhaps you "skeptics" know something theoretical physicists do not (?). It's a very odd statement: "we don't have the ability to vary large amounts of different variables out of a complete variable list in a spaceless area, much less the computers needed to run regressions and chi-square tests on such an infinity of potential causes." If that is to relate to anything scientific, I have no idea what it could be. A so-called quantum void is an 'irreducible nothingness' which is not coherently understood as containing an "infinity of potential causes." Proposing a single, fleeting fluctuation is problematic enough. We all make rather horrid arguments at times, I suppose, so I'll not throw stones here. But it is instructive that "skeptics" appeal to such fancy.
|
It is instructive that you assume the quantum void predating the Planck moment. I thought you didn't know what predated the Planck moment. To wit, Big Bang theory is the current belief because steady state theory was demonstrably insufficient, and nobody really had any better ideas. A fundamental component of Big Bang theory is that it entails a moment when everything was supercompressed, a moment before which we could not know anything about what was. Some have gone so far as to believe that the universe repeatedly expands and collapses in recurring Big Bangs. You could not know whether this has happened or not, without knowing the details.
I would like to note for the reader that the theories about the Big Bang are not constructed by somehow tracing every particle back to the center of the universe and reconstructing what happened at the beginning of the universe; rather they are concluded by models that start from the beginning and go on. I would also like to note that Janssen has not, to my knowledge, identified these weaknesses in his discussion of the theory. I do not say that we must doubt that the Big Bang happened as Hawking has concluded. I rather say that Janssen has been lax in his presentation of the material; he has presented as unquestionable fact what is really (relatively credible) modular speculation.
And Janssen, I am merely proposing how you would go about demonstrating causality and calculating probability in the real world. Because these things cannot be done with respect to the beginning of the universe, I naturally take issue with you claiming that you have the results that would come of them. If you want to claim those results, I would like to know how they came about. You make rather horrid arguments at times, I suppose, so I'll not throw stones here. I'll wait till later.
I would like to note for the reader that the theories about the Big Bang are not constructed by somehow tracing every particle back to the center of the universe and reconstructing what happened at the beginning of the universe; rather they are concluded by models that start from the beginning and go on. I would also like to note that Janssen has not, to my knowledge, identified these weaknesses in his discussion of the theory. I do not say that we must doubt that the Big Bang happened as Hawking has concluded. I rather say that Janssen has been lax in his presentation of the material; he has presented as unquestionable fact what is really (relatively credible) modular speculation.
And Janssen, I am merely proposing how you would go about demonstrating causality and calculating probability in the real world. Because these things cannot be done with respect to the beginning of the universe, I naturally take issue with you claiming that you have the results that would come of them. If you want to claim those results, I would like to know how they came about. You make rather horrid arguments at times, I suppose, so I'll not throw stones here. I'll wait till later.
Your statements concerning 'time' do not seem to distill into an argument that can be treated. Augustine's characterization of God's extra-temporal existence as being an "eternal simultaneity" is, it seems to me, logically adequate. It is consistent with an "existence" (perhaps we should say 'supra-existence') without physical extension. How would beings such as ourselves understand this better? I don't know. There are no statements to be made of sequence outside of 'real' time. I don't think that this has been contended.
|
Perchance you are unable to treat them, so you say that they are not really an argument?
I have googled the phrase ' "eternal simultaneity" Augustine ' and not found anything other than this page, another page you wrote, and two unrelated-looking pages. My conclusion is that Augustine likely never characterized anything as an "eternal simultaneity." I would like to point out again that you have not cited the statements of the big names that you are hiding behind, you just throw their names around. If they have made a valid point, reference it or restate it yourself.
I have googled the phrase ' "eternal simultaneity" Augustine ' and not found anything other than this page, another page you wrote, and two unrelated-looking pages. My conclusion is that Augustine likely never characterized anything as an "eternal simultaneity." I would like to point out again that you have not cited the statements of the big names that you are hiding behind, you just throw their names around. If they have made a valid point, reference it or restate it yourself.
You wanted to take a few more whacks at the "percent" piqata. You say, "Percent ALWAYS means a ratio standardized such that its denominator is 100." Paul Jacobson and I have both said the same thing in different words. This is not a point of contention. I have pointed out that there are two generally acceptable conceptual treatments of the numerator in statistical usage. That is all. I concede again that I may have explained this poorly and that the whole 'issue' could have been avoided if I had stated that argument in different words. In my taking (what I thought was) one last kick at that carcass I carelessly stated that the definition of percentile was practically synonymous with that of percent/percentage. There's no good reason for me to have said that and you were correct to observe this. We will place the word 'percentile' in the C.R. Drost column. If anything that has been said in any of these considerations is 'tangential', this is it.
|
Indeed. But it is humorous nonetheless. And a commentary is not only meant for your ears, Janssen; there is more in the world than just you.
As regards your 'paragraph 5' rebuttal: Of the origin of life you say "Here we have a place where God can have an influence... but anything can have an influence there!" Really? A causal influence? Anything? This is a "skeptical" argument? Sounds outlandish, quantified scientific examinations countermand your statement (see Crick, for example), might we ask for "proof"? Logical inference? Or is "skepticism" to be selectively applied to denying God only?
|
My statement "anything can have an influence" meant that all hypotheses about the origin of life are roughly equal in their value. As a matter of fact, I currently disagree with that assertion. I have been persuaded to abiogenesis after learning of recent tests where biological molecules have been developed in vitro simply by simulating the conditions of early Earth.
However, I maintain that none of us can really know what caused life. This is why neither Adam-and-Eve nor abiogenesis can be disproven. The thesis that an alien planted us on this planet is possible as well; simply because we have a lot of possibilities, it does not mean that any is particularly probable. And just because we don't know whether God had an influence in the creation of life, it doesn't mean that God indeed had an influence in life.
Again, you have more logic to learn.
However, I maintain that none of us can really know what caused life. This is why neither Adam-and-Eve nor abiogenesis can be disproven. The thesis that an alien planted us on this planet is possible as well; simply because we have a lot of possibilities, it does not mean that any is particularly probable. And just because we don't know whether God had an influence in the creation of life, it doesn't mean that God indeed had an influence in life.
Again, you have more logic to learn.
Theology and a different kind of gap:
As regards your theological foray ('paragraph 7' comments): You say: "God is clearly a being in a sense that we can't intuitively 'get' (a form of being that exists outside of sequence)... but Janssen's ideas showed that he understood as well. Still, Janssen demonstrates that he does not believe in a traditional God, and the question is... If God is aspectless and formless, then doesn't the effort to argue God's existence not matter, because from a practicable point God doesn't exist? The work wasn't so much arguing the possibility that the universe was created: it was arguing about Gods that have traits." I am not sure what you expect "a traditional God" to be. Perhaps one that is easily defeated by sufficiently clever arguments? An anthropomorphous candy-stork clerk or a hurler of lightening bolts? |
*shrug* The Biblical God has, if you read the Bible, occasionally had more of a form and more aspects than any candy clerk or any lightning-thrower. In fact, very few have stopped to believe in a god without definition. Most people define their God, like "God is omniscient, God is omnipotent," et cetera.
No, I believe in the same God that the wisest theologians and humblest saints have believed in for many centuries.
|
Argument from authority. And some presumption as to who the "wisest" is.
As you say, we struggle greatly to define God, if there is a tradition that has 'God' completely encircled by human understanding, then we would have a theology of a "traditional God" which most theologians and thinking theists would have to reject. The great Greek thinkers of antiquity saw that God cannot be conformed to human understanding, as did the Hebrew theologians, David, Solomon, Isaiah, the writer of Job, and Philo.
|
More argument from authority.
In any case, you argue that God "cannot be conformed to human understanding." Think about this for a second. A good, long, hard second. You cannot understand God. Any understanding you have of God is truly nonexistent. If you believe God exists, you are wrong, because you are attempting to understand God as existent, which could not possibly be God because you can't understand God. Or anything anyone might say about God; all of it would be wrong.
Yes, Janssen, if you were right about the point that God cannot be conformed to human understanding, that you could not ponder God as an existent being. However, it somewhat grieves me to tell you that just because a bunch of people believed it, it is not necessarily true. This is true throughout your rebuttal to me, throughout your writings to Jacobsen--truth is not made out of belief.
In any case, you argue that God "cannot be conformed to human understanding." Think about this for a second. A good, long, hard second. You cannot understand God. Any understanding you have of God is truly nonexistent. If you believe God exists, you are wrong, because you are attempting to understand God as existent, which could not possibly be God because you can't understand God. Or anything anyone might say about God; all of it would be wrong.
Yes, Janssen, if you were right about the point that God cannot be conformed to human understanding, that you could not ponder God as an existent being. However, it somewhat grieves me to tell you that just because a bunch of people believed it, it is not necessarily true. This is true throughout your rebuttal to me, throughout your writings to Jacobsen--truth is not made out of belief.
Imperfect as our description of extra-cosmic "traits" must be, be cannot try to talk about something without alluding to traits, so far as we can grapple with them, as in your characterization, "exists outside of sequence", which, we note, is a trait. The arguments here have a hard time defining themselves.
|
Indeed. An unconformable God doesn't exist, and a practical God which does exist is not the one you believe in.
You ask "If we say that God created the universe, then how does it follow that God is either good or just?" The question is more than a bit misleading, but can nonetheless be generally treated as stated. If the created universe, nature's laws and constituent existence, including our little blue island in space and our own conscious selves, are "good" (and existence indeed seems good if compared to non-existence), then we can suggest that the Archetype of goodness is itself good.
|
And if they are relatively neutral? You define existence as "good" on a whim, and then you say that the creator of existence must himself be good. This is not necessarily the case, and I would reject the suggestion.
First off, mass murderers have the trait of existence, but not really the trait of goodness. Hence, the two are not synonymous. If you read as much logic as you say you do, then I will have to characterize this as "argument by equivocation." You use the two in the same voice when they are different concepts.
Also, your belief that the architect (not archetype) of goodness is itself good requires the archetype to conform to human understanding. But wait a second, your God does not conform to human understanding.
First off, mass murderers have the trait of existence, but not really the trait of goodness. Hence, the two are not synonymous. If you read as much logic as you say you do, then I will have to characterize this as "argument by equivocation." You use the two in the same voice when they are different concepts.
Also, your belief that the architect (not archetype) of goodness is itself good requires the archetype to conform to human understanding. But wait a second, your God does not conform to human understanding.
Similarly, if constituent existent beings (let us say Jacobsen, Drost, and Janssen) are free to question whether God is good, then this creator who does not demand bound automatons is reasonably considered both good and just, and so forth. But as I say, your questions here appeal less to reason than to muddied waters and human ignorance. If we wanted to make your argument here sound as dubious as it seems to me to be, but by employment of a snappy slogan, we might call your argument a "Skepticism of the Gaps"!
|
*shrug* I will point out that my "argument" was a question, "If we say that God created the universe, then how does it follow that God is either good or just?". Question (not equal sign) argument. If the question is a skepticism of the gaps to you, so be it. However, your proposed god could not be understood to be good, because your proposed god could not be understood.
Leading into your conclusions, you say "to say that you are doing the Lord's work has always been presumptuous." Of course, if you take a look at my comments to Mr. Jacobsen you will find that I have not made that claim. Rather I questioned why he is so certain as to what God does and does not do; would or would not do, and tried to illustrate a reason he should question his certainty. You have also made statements describing what God would and would not do ("Jacobsen's own thoughts would be pushed. . .", etc.). We wonder if claiming to thus know what God would and would not do "has always been presumptuous"? [Possibly having offered ideas in this vein myself] I will only suggest that it would be prudent for all to be careful about throwing stones in this regard (I saw yours coming when I wrote what I did to Jacobsen).
|
Prudence is conceded, when dealing with the god that you have proposed. You have not been very prudent with this god.
You and I might note that your proposed god is hardly orthodox, since your conception of him requires you to not conclude his existence, to not conclude his omnipotence, to not conclude his omnibenevolence. If any of these were concluded, you would understand your god, but your god is by your earlier definition not conformable to human understanding.
You and I might note that your proposed god is hardly orthodox, since your conception of him requires you to not conclude his existence, to not conclude his omnipotence, to not conclude his omnibenevolence. If any of these were concluded, you would understand your god, but your god is by your earlier definition not conformable to human understanding.
Conclusion.
Your conclusion was a return to your "God of the Gaps" theme and has been treated above. My conclusion is that that your "skepticism" is selectively applied dogmatism. |
There's the word! It's been a long time. I missed you, dogmatism, oh how I missed you.
You speak of "searching" but you virtually forbid finding answers.
I accept finding answers. Hence, you are wrong. That was simple enough.
You speak of "searching" but you virtually forbid finding answers.
I accept finding answers. Hence, you are wrong. That was simple enough.
You seek a cacophony of supposedly "valid" ideas that often need no support, to swamp important questions in an artificially embellished abyss of doubt.
|
...Not really. At least, "seeking _____" implies that you know that _____ is what you seek. And I know that I am not seeking for a cacophany of much of anything. Hence, you are wrong. Also simple enough.
Ideas that are merely imagined (that the origin of life might be traced to "anything", for example), or are logically unsupportable (your cosmological "infinity of potential causes", for example) are held to be antithetical equalizers to quantification and to far more thoroughly reasoned conclusions.
|
When I understand science to work in certain ways, and you say that something has been produced without using those certain ways, and you use a lot of argument-by-authority but not much actual argument, I have to contend against the supposed thorough reasoning.
You are the happily hung juror.
I am happily hung, yes, but I don't for a minute assume that reality won't continue until I make my judgment. So comparing me to a hung juror is a bit awkward, no? Hung juries prevent the case from going on, but I don't prevent the real from continuing.
I do make the judgment that I can do without your proposed god. If I can't be sure of his existence or ability or action or desires or, for that matter, how my next action should change because of him, then I would rather do without him. It is not that I know he does not exist; then I would understand him, which would be contrary to the definition. I just think that it's a layer of complications that we can step back from. Occam's Razor, if you wish to characterize it that way. No, more than Occam's Razor: Because I understand that there must be 0 utility to be gained from the added complexity.
You are the happily hung juror.
I am happily hung, yes, but I don't for a minute assume that reality won't continue until I make my judgment. So comparing me to a hung juror is a bit awkward, no? Hung juries prevent the case from going on, but I don't prevent the real from continuing.
I do make the judgment that I can do without your proposed god. If I can't be sure of his existence or ability or action or desires or, for that matter, how my next action should change because of him, then I would rather do without him. It is not that I know he does not exist; then I would understand him, which would be contrary to the definition. I just think that it's a layer of complications that we can step back from. Occam's Razor, if you wish to characterize it that way. No, more than Occam's Razor: Because I understand that there must be 0 utility to be gained from the added complexity.
Polkinghorne says, "There is a way of proceeding in conceptual matters whose method is to define away any inconvenient difficulty. All the really tricky questions are declared meaningless, despite the fact that they are sufficiently well comprehended to give rise to perplexity." While this observation is apparently directed toward logical positivism, it applies also to your virulent vision of "skepticism."
|
My vision of skepticism is virulent, eh? Is it making you sick, too? I have not declared the question of God meaningless; in fact I have implicitly declared it meaningful by bothering to counter-respond to you. However, I have, in the previous paragraph, declared your proposed god meaningless. I believe I have given a good reason why, by definition, it is.
Positivism claims to be anti-metaphysical but is itself metaphysical. Your school of "skepticism" may envisage itself as being anti-dogmatic, but is itself highly dogmatic. "'Tis skepticism" you say, but 'tis dogmatism.
|
Thanks to the readers who bore through this counter-response, and especially to those that dealt with Janssen's rant in its original form. I hope that this has been modestly entertaining.
--C. R. Drost
--C. R. Drost