Nature of evidence and related matters (ADT, Lily, possibly Choobus)

[a different tim]

This isn't a bad starting point, it's my post 75 from the previous thread.

ADT wrote

I can go with JTB as the traditional philosophical definition. The usual grounds for conflict are arguments over what "justification" and "truth" mean.

So, to state my position:

I would argue for a narrow view of justification to include testable predictions and not a vast amount else, and a view of knowledge that is essentially if/then propositional knowledge. I think other forms of knowledge, such as knowledge by acquaintance, can be reduced to propositional knowledge, or else they are something we would not properly call "knowledge". "Knowing" a person, for example, essentially means we are able to broadly predict their behaviour in various circumstances, and "knowing" a piece of music means that given one part of it we can predict what will happen next. The better we know them the more accurate our predictions are likely to be.

There are insights to be gained from other forms of justification, but I would not call the results of such insights "knowledge".

I would however argue for a fairly broad view of testability - for example, a lot of historical knowledge is testable in that we can cross check documents with archaeological finds, for example. Although this kind of thing counts, I do not believe it is as secure as a rigorous mathematical prediction. I know you (Lily) are a historian, and if you like I can give a very concrete example of the kind of thing I mean here.

As for "truth" we can argue about the status of truth if you like, but it's a separate issue. However I regard the business of science as producing accurate models, and accuracy is subtly different to "truth" which may be unattainable. This is why I regard knowledge as propositional - accurate models produce statements of the order "if x, then y" which are not dependent on some transcendental notion of truth.

Obviously, as an atheist, I don't think that within this framework you can justify belief in the miraculous and supernatural, as opposed to purely historical, accounts of Jesus.

I almost missed this. OK, we will see what I can do. However, I won't be around much for the rest of the week-- the holidays are upon us. Just to remind you, we celebrate having kicked your 18th century derrieres back across the Atlantic on the 4th, thus creating a nation that does not need to endure warm beer or marmite!

[Professor Chaos]

Freedom for ludicrously rich old white male slaveowners!

EDIT: I promise I will stay out of your thread if once it actually starts. ;)

[a different tim]

Lily wrote

I almost missed this. OK, we will see what I can do. However, I won't be around much for the rest of the week-- the holidays are upon us. Just to remind you, we celebrate having kicked your 18th century derrieres back across the Atlantic on the 4th, thus creating a nation that does not need to endure warm beer or marmite!

Fine, whenever. I have periods of sporadic posting myself.

We kicked your asses in the 1812 war but decided you could keep the place. Clearly we only let you go so we could keep all the Marmite for ourselves.

[antix]

a different tim wrote

Fine, whenever. I have periods of sporadic posting myself.

We kicked your asses in the 1812 war but decided you could keep the place. Clearly we only let you go so we could keep all the Marmite for ourselves.

Do you think you could work out some sort of an invasion in the near future? Not some minor little skirmish mind you, I'm talking about a full blown invasion. Sure, we took a punch in the face on 9-11, but what we really need is a full blown ass-whuppin.

Like Chaos, I'll stay away from this thread once it starts rolling. This just seemed like an appropriate time to make this request.

[a different tim]

Probably not. Now Blair's gone we're likely to be a lot less invasion-happy than we were last week.

Like Chaos, I'll stay away from this thread once it starts rolling. This just seemed like an appropriate time to make this request.

Yes, please.

ADT: upon rereading the above, I feel the need to be sure that we are examining the same proposition. I freely and gladly admit that there is no scientifically testable evidence for the existence of God, just as there is no experiment that one could undertake to prove that God doesn't exist. So, given this:

I would however argue for a fairly broad view of testability - for example, a lot of historical knowledge is testable in that we can cross check documents with archaeological finds, for example. Although this kind of thing counts, I do not believe it is as secure as a rigorous mathematical prediction. I know you (Lily) are a historian ( actually no. I am a useless Medieval Lit major), and if you like I can give a very concrete example of the kind of thing I mean here.

I think we can still talk about the proposition I wanted to discuss, i.e. belief is not blind. Rational, intelligent people can believe in God (and let me be honest, I mean God-- as described by Christianity) because the evidence is of such quality and in sufficient quantity that a reasonable person can accept it. However, this may not be the conversation that you thought you were getting into. For all I know, you might not even dispute this (though I am skeptical about that), even though many here apparently do.

So, over to you... what's your pleasure?



(Edited to clarify since there is some evidence out there that some didn't get it.)

[nkb]

Can we get some clarification, please: is this going to be a moderated thread or not? I have not seen a specific request to a mod yet.

Or is Lily waiting for this thread to get "hijacked", so she can complain about it being "hijacked", and avoid the actual debate?

Lily,
As PC mentioned in the other thread, why are you dancing around so much? ADT has given his first shot at what he sees as admissible evidence, and you have yet to propose yours. You obviously have something in mind, just blurt it out.

All of these evidence threads are taking on a Francis-like quality, with quibbling over the rules of the debate, as opposed to getting down to the actual discussion.

[Professor Chaos]

Yes, this is moderated. Eva (or Tenspace) should delete all posts not by Lily, ADT, or possibly Choobus.

[Eva]

i will moderate.

from now on, only dt, lily and possibly choobus.

rest of you, stfu.

[a different tim]

Lily wrote

ADT: upon rereading the above, I feel the need to be sure that we are examining the same proposition. I freely and gladly admit that there is no scientifically testable evidence for the existence of God, just as there is no experiment that one could undertake to prove that God doesn't exist. So, given this:

I think we can still talk about the proposition I wanted to discuss, i.e. belief is not blind. Rational, intelligent people can believe in God (and let me be honest, I mean God-- as described by Christianity) because the evidence is of such quality and in sufficient quantity that a reasonable person can accept it. However, this may not be the conversation that you thought you were getting into. For all I know, you might not even dispute this (though I am skeptical about that), even though many here apparently do.

So, over to you... what's your pleasure?



(Edited to clarify since there is some evidence out there that some didn't get it.)

OK.
I think we're on the same page. What I think is that you can't gather enough evidence to claim "justified true belief" for Christianity or indeed any other religion.

Now it seems to me that you accept the parameters in post#1, but also you think this is insufficient, because religious belief cannot (as you seem to admit) be justified within those parameters, and you consider religious belief (or at least some forms of it) to be "reasonable". So, if belief is not blind, what do you think I have left out and why?

For example, you've also stated that most of us, in practice, accept propositions outside of the parameters I have stated. What kind of propositions are we talking about and are they the same kind of propositions as religious ones? We can discuss this as abstract philosophy or in the context of concrete examples, I don't mind.

I was then intending to discuss if whatever I have left out does or doesn't count as "knowledge" or (more likely) "reasonable belief". If I can persuade you that your reasonable grounds are not, in fact, reasonable, then I hope to convert you to the weak atheist position (basically that, in the absence of evidence, atheism should be the philosophical default).

Then I intend to laugh like this:

Muhahahahahahahahaha!!!

Because, as all theists know, atheists are secret believers in their hearts and only debate in order to drag as many good Christians down to hell with them as they can, out of pure malice.

Too ambitious, you think? :P

Or of course I may be wrong and you can show why it is reasonable for you to accept Christianity - that is always one possible outcome of an atheist/theist debate. In theory.

a different tim wrote

OK.
I think we're on the same page. What I think is that you can't gather enough evidence to claim "justified true belief" for Christianity or indeed any other religion.

(lots of good stuff snipped!)

Or of course I may be wrong and you can show why it is reasonable for you to accept Christianity - that is always one possible outcome of an atheist/theist debate. In theory.

Great! Back at ya, after the holiday. You'll be singing in the choir before you know it!


(Maybe you already are? I heard a story recently about an atheist who regularly taught Sunday School and had for years. When asked why, he replied "Well, something has to keep the little bastards in line". So, I guess there are other reasons for entering our sacred halls...)

[a different tim]

I sang in a choir at school, but these days I like to make machines go bleep VERY LOUDLY instead. Science has all the best tunes.....it seems to motivate my students, even the little bastards.

OK, adt! Contrary to what the thinks, I have not avoided getting started here out of fear of being ground to a pulp but, rather, because I am dithering over where or how to begin.

We already know that you would prefer empirical evidence, which I find of limited value on the subject we propose to discuss, while I come down firmly on the side of the intellect, of the power of deductive reasoning. You wrote above:

"Now it seems to me that you accept the parameters in post#1, but also you think this is insufficient, because religious belief cannot (as you seem to admit) be justified within those parameters, and you consider religious belief (or at least some forms of it) to be "reasonable". So, if belief is not blind, what do you think I have left out and why?

I have said this before but it bears repeating. We (Christians) do not believe in a set of propositions but encounter the living God in a man--Jesus. So there is (and I think you alluded to this in another context?) what I think we would call knowledge by acquaintance. The problem with arguing from that particular vantage point is, clear. While it is evidence of a sort, it is hardly testable and it can certainly seem (be?) ambiguous.

So, since I am having a difficult time figuring out where to start, let me ask you where you would like to. The consensus over in the peanut gallery appears to be that miracles are the most obvious problem. Do you agree with that? It would be a starting place...

[a different tim]

No, OK, that's fine. Debates don't have to be at light speed. If it takes ten years to make an argument, that argument is still valid.

The consensus over in the peanut gallery appears to be that miracles are the most obvious problem

They are certainly the most obvious and we will have to address them at some point, but I don't think they are the starting point.

We already know that you would prefer empirical evidence, which I find of limited value on the subject we propose to discuss, while I come down firmly on the side of the intellect, of the power of deductive reasoning

This I can argue if you like. I have my reasons for empiricism. Do you want to talk Godel and the mathematically proven limits of deductive reasoning? Or the historical record of a priori reasoning versus hypothetico-deductivism? Deductive reasoning is certainly vital but it cannot be the whole picture. Probably a side issue though.

I think I would like you to look at the original post about knowledge by acquaintance again, though. I think "knowledge by acquaintance" is essentially a set of predictions about behaviour. I think that when we say "I know someone" in the sense of knowing a friend it means no more and no less than "I know roughly what this person is likely to do/say in a given set of circumstances". We have a model of that person in our consciousness that is in many ways a parallel to a scientific model. My relatively superficial reading on neurology and psychology seems to back this, though perhaps Prof G could comment in the peanut gallery.

Anyway, in the case of a friend, we are comfortable with their expected behaviour, in the case of someone we dislike (but can equally claim to "know") we are not comfortable with it. This is predictive so it is testable. In fact we acknowledge this in everyday language - when someone does something that doesn't fit our model we say "it seems I didn't know them as well as I thought" or similar.

Now, I don't see how you can be claiming "knowledge by acquaintance" of Jesus and mean it in the sense above. When you say this:

We (Christians) do not believe in a set of propositions but encounter the living God in a man--Jesus

most of us here, I think I'm right in saying, have no idea what you mean.

In fact, to be more precise, we have no idea what you can possibly mean that is reasonable or rational. Clearly you haven't met him physically, so you don't know him in that sense. Most of us, I think, believe you and other Christians don't "know" him in the way one would an external phenomenon at all, but that you are instead mistaking an internal state for an external reality, which is I guess why Cal goes on about voices in your head and Christ psychosis.

So, I guess, to refine the previous question:
- What does it mean when you say you encounter God? I'm not being rude or sarcastic here. I honestly don't know.
- What is it about this encounter that makes you think that it is evidence for God as an existent being? Again I don't know.

The difficulty for us, I think, is you are saying you don't believe in a set of propositions, but even by stating you are a Christian (or I suppose an adherent of any religion) you seem to be making a proposition - "God exists" - that to us needs justifying. I'm not sure that you can avoid that, and I certainly don't see how we can avoid asking for justification if we are to accept your assertion that faith can be rational and reasonable.

In case it wasn't clear earlier, by the way, I am fully prepared to accept that a reasonable person may have faith, but in such a case I would see faith as anomalous. What I'm not accepting is the subtly different proposition that the person is acting reasonably when he or she has faith.

/edited for punctuation.