Musings of a Seminarian

Epistemology has progressed (regressed?) to the point that skepticism is the order of the day.

Popper says that Science cannot prove anything.

The world is filled with belief systems that are internally rationally coherent but are without external reasons to believe in any one of them. We cannot know whether they are "true".

I agree that we cannot know they are true in a foundationalistic sense because all "foundational" truths can be questioned.

Humans, however, do not need to know if anything is true. If the skeptics are right then all human beings have lived their lives without knowing anything is true.

On the other hand, humans do have to "do" something. People are born and find themselves, as Howard the Duck, says "trapped in a world they did not create."

Here they sit.

Now what are they going to do?

They may find that there is nothing that they can "know" with absolute certainty but the have to do something, they can't just sit there.

But yes they can, you say, they can just sit there.

Exactly.

Just sitting there is "doing" something.

So, now what do they do?

They have to find ways to make decisions, choices.

If they are "rationalists" they want to find methods of making choices that are rational.

How do you rationally make decisions if you don't have the facts?

That's not a hard question. We do it every day.

What executive, when faced with a decision and a deadline, did not want more information before she made a decision.

We make plans for the future. What career field shall I choose? What shall I major in? What shall I make for dinner? We make these plans knowing(?) full well that we cannot foresee what the future holds.

We cannot say "I'm not going to do anything until I know it is right." We take in data, and using our reason and best judgement (or not) we act.

Notice I say "data" and "information", not "facts". The word "facts" implies that the stated proposition is true.

Data and information can be determined as as "reliable" or "unreliable" or somewhere on the continum between, but from a skeptical viewpoint we cannot know they are true.

The term "reliable" indicates that one can "rely" on them. Reliability implies that one can make good decisions based on that assumption.

Good decisions can and must be made without "knowing". What is needed is a method for determining "reliability".

But thats another day.

"One way of describing this perplexing situation is that we live in a multiply ambiguous world. This is a world in which Christianity competes, it seems, with other doxastically rational religious traditions which are increasingly well­understood by it, and it by them, and them by each other; and in which each such tradition competes with many forms of secularised naturalism of which the same can be said.

This situation is one that is tailor­made for someone who thinks like the pre­Cartesian sceptic, who saw a large variety of competing ideologies and belief­systems, and saw that each could sustain itself by philosophical argument, and judged this very fact to be a reason to suspend judgment about all of them. This is a rational response, and readily understandable after a few courses in philosophy and comparative religion. But it is not the only rational response. What is one to say if one recognises that this is our intellectual situation, but does so while remaining in one of the competing belief­systems, such as Christianity­­ or Buddhism, or whatever?

I submit that the doxastic obligation of the rational being faced with this ambiguity is to try to resolve it; to try to dis­ambiguate our world. If it is doxastically proper to retain a set of convictions in such a world, it is nevertheless obligatory to find some arguments to sustain them. This, after all, is what traditional natural theology sought to do. It predates Enlightenment foundationalism, and I submit that Christianity has more need of it than ever. The arguments of Reformed epistemology do not show it is not needed. All they show is that Christians have not been irrational to come by their beliefs without doing it first. This is not enough, once one comes to see how readily the same point can be made about so many other world views. One does not defeat one's opponents by beating one's own chest. Reformed epistemology does not show us we do not need natural theology. It helps reveal a situation in which we can see we need it more than ever."

Terence Penelhum

University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~nurelweb/papers/other/penel.html

This view indicates that because the good rational basises for all these beliefs are the same principal, there is no rational basis for selecting any one of these beliefs. The most reasonable solution is to "suspend judgement".

This indicates the need to use traditional natural theology as a basis by which to select between them.

Is natural theology the only or best means to select between the competing "programs"?

# posted by Dan @ 11:38 PM 0 comments

"... the similar argument for the rationality of Christian belief developed by Alston in Perceiving God, which I think is the finest document of Reformed Epistemology to date."

Same Source

"The protest begins with a self­referential argument that Plantinga has stated several times. Why should we assume that no belief is rational if it is not either self­evident, or an incorrigible deliverance of consciousness, or inferred from some other belief that is in one of these two classes? The thesis that only beliefs that conform to this requirement are rational ones can not itself be stated without violating this principle, since it is neither self­evident nor incorrigible, nor deducible from a proposition that is. "It is no more than a bit of intellectual imperialism on the part of the founationalist." But if we resist it we will see that belief in God may well be rational even if it is not inferred from beliefs that conform to the foundationalist programme. It might be ~ properly basic." Those who believe in God this way have not been shown by the foundationalist to have violated any epistemic or doxastic obligations in doing so."

Professor Terence Penelhum



http://www.ucalgary.ca/~nurelweb/papers/other/penel.html

See:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Patterns.html

For a good chart of the basic patterns relating Faith & Science.

See "Complementarity" view is supported by Augustine.

I should research Augustine's epistemology.

Philosophy of Science:

This is a field of study that is little known but is very important The philosophical foundations of science are taken for granted within most of the scientific community, yet they are never (well rarely ever) explicitly taught and are therefore not questioned.

Logic as typically used by scientists

Deductive Reasoning

If A is true then B is true.

Premises A1: All bald men are handsome.
A2: Dan is bald
Conclusion B: Dan is handsome

Begin Atheists Web Reference (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html)

Implication in detail

"Clearly you can build a valid argument from true premises, and arrive at a true conclusion. You can also build a valid argument from false premises, and arrive at a false conclusion.

The tricky part is that you can start with false premises, proceed via valid inference, and reach true conclusion. For example:

Premise: All fish live in the ocean
Premise: Sea otters are fish
Conclusion: Therefore sea otters live in the ocean

There's one thing you can't do, though: start from true premises, proceed via valid deductive inference, and reach a false conclusion."

"So the fact that an argument is valid doesn't necessarily mean that its conclusion holds -- it may have started from false premises." End Atheists Web Reference

Fallacies [Something that looks logical but is not. Dan's Definition]

A common fallacy in science.

Begin Atheists Web Reference Affirmation of the consequent

"This fallacy is an argument of the form "A implies B, B is true, therefore A is true". To understand why it is a fallacy, examine the truth table for implication given earlier. Here's an example:

"If the universe had been created by a supernatural being, we would see order and organization everywhere. And we do see order, not randomness -- so it's clear that the universe had a creator." End Atheists Web Reference

An example of a this fallacy in Science:

If A1: All life evolved from a common ancestor
And A2: Organisms with a common ancestor will have similarity.
Then B: All organisms will be similar.

And we do see that all life forms are similar, therefore they all have a common ancestor.

This applies more directly to the use of experimentation in the scientific method.

A simplified picture of the scientific method.

1. Create a hypothesis (State a test premise)
2. Design an experiment to test the hypothesis. The experiment will apply the principles of the hypothesis and predict an outcome. The experiment must have a control group.
3. Prove (validate) the hypothesis by showing that the predicted outcome (conclusion) occurs.

Just because it works does not mean it is true.

Deductive Reasoning Summary

Deductive reasoning can disprove a premise if sound reasoning brings a false conclusion.

Deductive reasoning can validate but cannot prove a premise.

If deductive reasoning can only provide true conclusions if the premises are true and if deductive reasoning cannot prove the premise then:

Where do hypotheses come from?

Inductive Reasoning

Definition:

Induction - "Probable reasoning whose conclusion goes beyond what is formally contained in its premises." Garth Kemmerling, (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/i9.htm#ind)

Induction - "A method of reasoning by which one infers a generalization from a series of instances. Inductive syllogisms are of the following form:

These beans are from this bag. (and these beans..., and these beans..., etc.)
These beans are (all) white.
Therefore, all beans from this bag are white."

Chris Eliasmith, (http://artsci.wustl.edu/~philos/MindDict/induction.html)

In other words:

You line up 1 million bald men. The first bald man is handsome. The next bald man is handsome. Etc, until you have seen so many handsome bald men and no ugly bald men that you are convinced that "All bald men are handsome."

From inductive reasoning you can find what appears true or is probably true but one untrue example disproves the conclusion.

If Dan is ugly then the inductive conclusion is proved untrue.

What is faith?

In both instances (inductive and deductive logic) the premise appears true and cannot be disproved so it is taken as (assumed to be) true. Is this faith?

None of these methods proves truth, they just provide evidence on which we can make decisions.

Science Summary

1. Science is good and useful. It produces results.
2. Science is a systematic study of nature, a part of God's general revelation.
3. Science cannot prove that its premises are true, it can just show that they work and that they have not been proven untrue.

How then do we know the truth?

Worldly tools such as science and philosophy do not have the authority to state without doubt that their premises are true.

Imagine a child who no matter what you answer asks "Why?". After a while you answer either "I don't know." or "Because I told you so, that’s why."

There inevitably comes either an admission of ignorance or an appeal to authority.

God provides his own authority.

John 14: 6 "I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the father but by me."

John 8: 31-32 "Jesus therefore said to those Jews that had believed him, If ye abide in my word, then are ye truly my disciples; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

Romans 10:17 "Faith comes from hearing and hearing by the word of Christ."

1 Corinthians 2:10-16 "For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man, which is in Him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no man. For who has known the mind of the Lord that he should instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ."

Summary: What is the truth and how will we know it?

We know the truth because God reveals it to us.

Christ is the Truth. We have the mind of Christ because he has given us the Spirit. If we "abide in his word" we shall know the truth (Jesus) and the truth will set us free.

GRANTED;

This post presupposes that the Bible is God's message to us. Not everybody agrees with that.

I believe that true knowledge of the world comes not from Science or any other efforts of mankind. Knowledge of the world can only be found if God reveals it to us.

Why do i believe that? Why is it reasonable to believe that?

That my friends is a whole 'nother post.

Grier Daniels

Note to Reader;

This is a reply I made on someone elses blog

Where do I stand in the Creation/Intelligent Design/Evolution debate?

I have spent a great deal of time wrestling with many of the same ideas you are pondering.

My main issue is the question of whether it is appropriate to change my view of what the Bible says due to the "provisional" theories of science.

I have come to be very sceptical that science has the tools to find truth. In a certain sense I am agnostic about the material world. I believe that it probably exists but utilizing earthly methods, we can't really know what it is.

What I've just written is just about as wierd as it sounds. Forgive me for being somewhat obtuse in my presentation.

Please take a look at my blog post
Is Science Logical?
and tell me what you think.

Many of my ideas need to be compared in detail to the Romans 1 passage you quoted. This text is foundational to the those Christian thinkers who embrace forms of scientific realism. We need to remember though that the Bible also says in 2 Corinthians 5:7 "... we walk by faith, not by sight.'

I intend to research the Romans 1 passage sometime in the next couple of years but my current feeling is the that it could (should?) be thought of this way: "... what can be known about God" ... "His eternal power and deity" ... "is plain to them, because God has shown it to them" because these things (His power and deity) have "been clearly perceived in the things thant have been made"

The terms "plain" and "clearly perceived" have been taken to indicate and justify a scientific realist perspective. I feel however that these terms indicate that we can see enough of how nature works to see God's power and dignity, but I do not take it to mean that Science can find much objective truth beyond that.

Thanks for the use of your ear (If you have read this far.) and please check out my Blog Article

Grier Daniels

This site will contain many different kinds of posts. Comments, Thoughts, Papers...

Who knows.