> I honestly don't know what would convince me that God exists. Of course, if
> He appeared in front of me in an undeniable way, that would be pretty
> convincing.
> But beyond that, I'm not sure.
Of course, the next logical question is "What do you mean by an
"undeniable" way? It's not uncommon for atheists to claim that they
would abandon their materialism in the event that they were confronted
with an authentic supernatural phenomenon. This is, according to many
of them, what distinguishes them from the religious believer who is
unwilling to revise his beliefs in the face of counter evidence.
Wanting to be regarded as objective and open minded, the materialist
avers that he would willingly discard his naturalistic paradigm in the
event that adequate evidence for the opposing side were presented. As
sincerely as one might believe this, I think that such a view fails to
take into consideration the nature of belief and worldviews.
Theism and atheism are antithetical worldviews or conceptual frameworks
that are founded upon presuppositions; ultimate beliefs that cannot be
"gotten behind" so to speak. Unless we are to have an infinite regress
of proofs or arguments for all that we claim to know, our knowledge must
begin with certain "faith commitments". These are philosophical
precommitments that govern our reasoning and interpretation of our
experiences and observations. Our presuppositions are not the result of
scientific inquiry or logical deduction but rather are the foundation
upon which our scientific methodology is built. They determine what we
will admit as "convincing" evidence as well as what we will acknowledge
as counter evidence to our worldview. As we've seen in this discussion,
our respective worldviews have epistemological, metaphysical, and
ethical significance.
Russell is committed to a materialistic worldview. That being the case,
he believes that for every event in the universe, there is a prior
naturalistic cause or explanation. Russell, in the event that you were
to witness what was an actual supernatural occurrence, you would do one
of two things: you would either offer a materialistic explanation for it
or you could not, you would claim that a naturalistic explanation exists
that is unknown at present. Oh, you might conclude that you have lost
your mind since I gather that you hold the belief that you are sane more
weakly than you hold yoiur materialism. Thus, your materialism is
practically unfalsifiable to you. This you share in common with the
theist. One cannot say a priori, which of his beliefs will be altered
were he to be presented with phenomena that does not readily comport
with his worldview.
This is why it is futile to simply argue the question of God's existence
in a piecemeal fashion. The issue is one of competing worldviews which
should be evaluated in terms of their internal consistency and their
ability to provide the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility
of our experience including ethics, science, logic, and epistemology.
It is my contention that materialism fails miserably on both counts.
>
> I certainly put much more weight in logic and experimental evidence than in
> eyewitness testimony. As someone once said, "if you listen to two eyewitness
> accounts of an auto accident, you will think twice about history".
What one regards as his ultimate epistemological authority is
self-verifying. In other words, if asked to justify his ultimate
epistemological authority, one will refer to it as part of the
justification. If he did not, but rather sought to justify it by
something else, THAT would be his ultimate epistemological authority and
not the originally professed standard. Therefore, the empiricist will
seek to justify his empiricism by appealing to sense experience and the
person who believes that logic is the ultimate test of truth will offer
a logical defense. The Christian regards God's revelation in nature,
His Son, and the Scriptures as the ultimate criterion of truth and
therefore when asked to justify his belief, will appeal to that
revelation.
I'm curious, Russ. Why is it that you regard logic and experimental
evidence as superior epistemological sources? And do you mean by
"experimental evidence" only those experiments that you have observed,
since anything else would require the eyewitness testimony of the
person/people who conducted the experiment? And if you listen to two
eyewitness accounts of an experiment, will you think twice about science
as well as history? ;-)
The question was asked before but I don't believe you addressed it in
detail. I take it from your concern for logical consistency and proof,
that you think highly of logic. What exactly do you believe the laws of
logic to be (I don't want you to enumerate them but rather to tell me
what you think their nature is i.e. are they human convention, etc.) and
how do they comport with a materialistic worldview. You did speak of an
"objective rationality" at one point but I'd like to have greater
clarification, if you don't mind.
>
> >#2. What is your "standard of proof"? If something can be demonstrated as
> >"more reasonable than not" or "more probable than not," are you willing to
> >accept it?
>
> I don't know. I guess I do have to think about it. But that shouldn't stop you
> or anyone else from trying to put forth a convincing argument.
I do think this is a very important question that warrants much
reflection on your part. I've heard many an atheist deny that there is
any evidence for God's existence but when asked what such evidence would
look like they are silent. If I don't know what something looks like,
how can I possibly say that I haven't seen it? If I told you to meet me
at O'Hare Airport without your knowing what I look like, and if we never
met as we scheduled, would you be justified in answering negatively when
asked "Did you see Keith at the airport?"? You might have walked right
by me but since you didn't know who you were looking for you don't know
whether or not you saw me.
Keith P.
> |_____________________________________________________________|
> | Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
> |_____________________________|_______________________________|
>
> 2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.