If one's proof of God's existence relies on morality being innate - one would have to realize that proof is flawed which would implicate the conclusion.Originally Posted by saltydawg
|
|
|
|
|
If one's proof of God's existence relies on morality being innate - one would have to realize that proof is flawed which would implicate the conclusion.
I am nothing more than an amateur philosopher who in his fairly short lifetime has studied many different philosophies AND religious "belief systems."
And I greatly appreciate you reading all of the missive, because it took quite a few hours to assemble and write it all. Put to your questions -
Three days ago I started "writing" this.
I have known about the philosophers who have provided the basis for the proof since around 1996.
A couple of names of the philosophers were mentioned in the text itself. I have tried to avoid making this be about the philosopher instead trying to focus on the philosophy. In many threads I have seen so far, as soon as you cite a "source" someone goes looking to indict the source hoping that doing so will destroy the argument (make it go away). The good thing about philosophy - and less so about science - you don't have to be an expert to appreciate the validity of the arguments. BTW, there are many clues that would enable someone to figure out WHO originated the ideas. In terms of level of contribution to the original aspects of the current epistemological proof, much would have to be attributed to Aristotle. I understand how you saw the relationship to Kant (who basically said Aristotle nailed the definition of LOGIC), but I think Kant made several philosophical wrong turns. I can see where you would get Hobbes as well from the poverty forum, but I don't think his philosophy is entirely correct either.
I would be willing to provide anyone with some sources if you would like to read more of this, but I would hate it to distract from what could potentially be a more fruitful discussion about the subject matter itself.
I'm sure you've seen that movie "Contact" with Jodi Foster. It offers an interesting insight into the whole faith issue. Well, interesting enough given it is a Hollywood movie. I actually enjoyed the movie.
I have a Masters of Education degree, so of course, I had to take all those educational philosophy courses and explore knowledge and reasoning. Pretty interesting stuff. I was surprised how much I enjoyed those two courses I took. Don't remember a whole heck of a lot about the subject, just began with the early Greeks and progressed thru a whole plethora of ideas and folks advancing one theory or another.
Here's what I have learned in my lifetime: people gain knowledge, i.e. learn, when they want to, and don't learn a thing when they don't give a hoot.
I don't think it ignores any of what you have mentioned. I have acknowledge most of these issues, but you must keep the "context" in mind. I understand that you cannot read it all right now - it would not do you any good if your mind is not free enough to really let it sink in, anyway. But I believe if you do make the effort to digest what I wrote, you will find the answers to the issues you brought up.
You are right in the first paragraph - most people's noodles are corrupt with contradictory thoughts and feelings. To a large extent this is unavoidable, because as you stated, this is how we are hardwired. Emotion can be both good and bad. It is a great "reflex" when it is right. You see a bad situation develop and fear sweeps over you (that is good). But it is unreliable. Through reductionism you can determine when emotions conflict with reality. What do you side with? I hope you choose reason over emotion. Valid concepts can ALWAYS be reduced to irreducible primaries - at that point you know the concept is in fact TRUE.
Your second paragraph is part of my proof - errors come about at the conceptual level. This doesn't mean the sensory inputs are no good, but it is a flaw with how you form concepts. People are always likely to have some false memories, but some concepts are more important than others. Those are the concepts that should be focused on first.
The process of "converting to reason" actually requires some purging of falsehoods and deconstruction of existing philosophical architectures (once you realize they are wrong). But once done, the faculty of reason is actually easier to use than when the mind is polluted with stolen or floating concepts. If you choose to champion REASON then your mind can use that faculty to organize thoughts more easily.
Last edited by Guisslapp; 02-24-2007 at 08:49 AM.
Very well put!
very nicely written.
Very good post. It's good to see that not everyone has bought into trying to save JTB or being a proponent of Alvin Plantinga's Warrent. I'm a Aristotilean/Thomist and appreciate your remarks about the necessity of first doing metaphysics before forming a theory of epistomology. I have agreed with most of your view, but am wondering about one thing. Are you saying that faith and reason are incompatible? I don't think you can have "knowledge" (in the full/strict sense) about things of faith, but I do not see how they are incompatible. In fact, taking the Thomistic distinction of "knowledge" and "belief", there seems to be an element of faith in any kind of belief. Is Faith and Reason incompatible or are they only distinct?
Last edited by drumlogic37; 02-24-2007 at 03:41 PM. Reason: typo
i don't know what prompted this thread, because i have not read anything in this section (with the exception of the global warming thread, to which i am unfortunately subscribed) for probably at least six months. but it looks like the best discussion we've had for a while (since the abortion debates of 5 or 6 years ago). i'll have to go back and read all of your points in total, but i would like to comment first based on what i have read.
most of the points you make (that i have read so far) are basic truths that anyone who seeks to gain knowledge, and has thought about how to determine in his own mind what is true, has stumbled upon in his own wondering (whether or not he has put those thoughts into words). and while it is true that all gained knowledge is the result of the brain interpreting what the senses report, i don't think there is any way to prove that no knowledge is innate: while it may be true that the objects of moral behavior are learned through perception, the knowledge of the morality of that behavior could well be innate. i'm not arguing that any knowledge is innate, simply playing the devil's advocate at this point.
as for salty's argument, he makes a huge leap in logic: "all knowledge is learned through the senses, ergo, God is dead." i would like to see the intermediate steps that led to that conclusion. i would also like to know which theological philosopher used innate knowledge of morality as a proof of God's existence. first of all, while there may be some evidence that all societies seem to have a similar concept of morality (on the big issues, anyway), i think it would be even more difficult to prove that morality is innate than it would be to prove that it is not. so you start with a pretty shaky foundation there. further, i would like to see the logical progression that would lead someone to the conclusion that an innate sense of morality is proof of God's existence. there are much more compelling arguments for the existence of God than that little wobbly construct -- so much so that its demolition would actually be a service to anyone employed with making such arguments.
Last edited by arkansasbob; 02-24-2007 at 04:10 PM. Reason: typo
Do you care to elaborate on this point? Unless you are arguing that accepting an axiom at face value because you can't disprove it without invoking it, I'm not sure I understand the "faith" element of the "knowledge" that is discussed. Is that where this Aquinas makes this comment?
I think the issue that you have raised between compatibility of Faith and Reason is ultimately a necessary one. I hope no one is reading this before reading my previous PROOF, because this wouldn't make sense outside of it. The distinction between Faith and Reason depends on how you define the two terms - I have set forth what I believe distinguishes the two below, but I believe that it is important to keep the CONTEXT of the message together.
Faith violates a fundamental rule of logic (which was never noted, to my knowledge by Aristotle) – it has to do with the ARBITRARY.
An arbitrary claim is one for which there is no evidence, either perceptual or conceptual. It is a brazen assertion based neither on direct observation nor on any attempted logical inference therefrom. For example, if you tell me there is an invisible gremlin in the room, that would be an arbitrary claim. It is not based on perceptual or conceptual evidence but on an unsupported assertion. One cannot prove or disprove the statement – thus it is arbitrary.
An arbitrary statement has no relation to man’s means of knowledge. Since the statement is detached from the realm of evidence, no process of logic can access it. Since it is affirmed in a void, cut off from any context, no integration to the rest of man’s knowledge is applicable; previous knowledge is irrelevant to it. Since it has no place in a hierarchy, no reduction is possible, and thus no observations are relevant. An arbitrary statement cannot be cognitively processed; by its nature, it is detached from any rational method or content of human consciousness. Such a statement is necessarily detached from reality as well. If an idea is cut loose from any means of cognition, there is no way of bringing it into relationship with reality.
An arbitrary claim is not merely an unwarranted effusion. By demanding one’s consideration in defiance of all the requirements of reason, it becomes an affront to reason and to the science of epistemology. In the absence of evidence there is no way to consider any idea on the subject. There is no way to reach a cognitive verdict, favorable or otherwise, about a statement to which logic, knowledge, and reality are irrelevant there is nothing the mind can do to or with such a phenomenon except sweep it aside.
Thus, one venerable rule of logic is: the onus of proof is on him who asserts a positive, and that one must not attempt to prove a negative. The onus of proof rule states the following: if a person asserts that a certain entity exists (the gremlin), he is required to adduce evidence supporting his claim. If he does so, one must either accept his conclusion, or disqualify his evidence by showing that he has misinterpreted certain data. But if he offers no supporting evidence, one must dismiss his claim without argumentation, because in this situation argument would be futile. It is impossible to prove a negative. It is the same as asking one to prove the nonexistence of an entity for which there is no evidence. OR, in the current example “Prove that there are no gremlins,” is to say: “Point out the facts of reality that follow from the nonexistence of gremlins.” But there are no such facts. Nothing follows from nothing.
Faith means acceptance on the basis of feeling rather than of evidence. A process of proof commits a man to its presuppositions and implications. It thus commits him to an entire philosophic approach – the validity of sense perception, the validity of reason, the method of logic, the processes of conceptual knowledge, the law of identity, the absolutism of reason. This process is fundamentally incompatible with faith. Faith involves the attempt to escape from the ABSOLUTISM of reason.
No one seeks to reject reason completely. What many men do seek, however, is not to be straitjacketed by reason all the time, in every issue, twenty-four hours a day. This approach ultimately tries to achieve a balance between reason and emotionalism. In REASON, there can be no such compromise.
If one attempts to combine reason and emotionalism, the principle of reason cannot be his guide, the elements that defines the terms of the compromise, because reason does not permit subjective feeling to have ANY voice in cognitive issues. Subjective feeling, therefore, which permits anyone anything he wants, must set the terms; it must be the element that decides the role and limits of reason.
This policy goes far beyond the occasional assertion of the arbitrary. It makes the use of logic itself a matter of caprice and thus elevates the arbitrary to the position of ruler of cognition. Such a policy is not a compromise – it cannot be describes as partial emotionalism. What makes a man an emotionalist is the criterion by which he accepts an idea; to him, it is not the idea’s logical support that counts, but its emotional congeniality. Such a man may very well invoke the recital of evidence; but when he does, it is not an expression of the principle of objectivity.
Last edited by Guisslapp; 02-24-2007 at 05:09 PM.
It was my Point No. 7. But if you disagree with the logic trail, show me precisely where you think it goes wrong. That was part of my goal by numbering the points in the post - to make it easier to refer to certain parts of the proof.
Salty's comment about morality being innate in the poverty thread started this one.
For Aquinas "knowledge" is something that can be demonstrated from first principles. Where as "belief" is philosophical opinion (e.g. opinion with reason, such as, beleiving that the sun will rise tomorrow or that the Napoleon existed). I "know" that I exist or that there must be an unmoved mover, but I "beleive" that my dad was born in Alexandria, LA. Knowledge is undeniable and absolute (given first principles), where as belief can be mistaken. "Faith" is accepting a propostion based on the authority of another (e.g. I have faith that e=mc2 based on the authority of physicists). For Aquinas "faith" and "belief" are very similar. Also, "faith" and "belief" can be ungrounded (e.g. faith that the sun won't rise tomorrow based on the authority of a crazy man, or I can beleive that I can fly based on emotion or a dream that I have had). I'm not saying that you have faith and knowledge about the same thing in the same sense. I only am saying that reason can accompany faith, like reason can accompany beliefs.
i don't disagree with your logic trail. you lay it out quite nicely. you simply made an omission. your statement was "Reason and Reason alone provides all of Man's basis for knowledge. Man cannot rely on emotion." you go on to show that emotion is not a reliable source for knowledge, to which i agree. but the argument does not address the pre-existence of knowledge. you have NOT shown that all knowledge is the result of reason, only that all gained knowledge is. morality is certainly supported by reason, but i can't remember far enough back to know when i gained a concept of morality, can you? so the possibility that moral knowledge is innate has not been disproven.
this brings me to your rebuttal to drumlogic. here, your logic is flawed. all this is very simple when you devide all concepts into the categories of "the arbitrary" and "that which can be proved." but this omits many things for which we have some evidence, but not proof. as a lawyer, you must be familiar with the concept. if i walk into the room and see a man stabbed to death, and another man holding a bloody daggar, I can reason (completely unaided by emotion) that the man with the knife is a murderer. if all of the other evidence available points to the same conclusion, then it is perfectly reasonable for me to believe that the man in question is, in fact, the killer. but it is still not proven. that does not make my faith in that man's guilt unreasonable.
but i guess i have somewhat missed the point. if morality were innate, and not supported by reason, there would be reason to question its validity as knowledge. since this is not the case, it is really irrelevent where morality originated.
I have tried to be careful to define the terms as I use them, thus the fact that people adopt different definitions ultimately should not affect the overall proof.
The issue of basing knowledge of other's is a difficult matter - because you cannot really know the other person's mind. In reality, we often accept many things on the authority of others. But you should keep that in context. If you have not personally validated e=mc^2 then you shouldn't accept it. In your mind you should think, "most if not all people who study physics accept the principle." You should not rely on this principle until you can validate it yourself.
The issue of the sun-rising the next day is also distinguishable. It has to do with "expectations" based on past experience. Without any knowledge of how the universe works, you would have to say there is "a high probability that the sun will rise tomorrow morning based on past experience alone."
The upshot - ALL knowledge is contextual, and if you have not personally validated a principle, you should be reluctant to accept other concepts that are built upon it.
BUT reason CANNOT accept faith as I have defined the two terms. Under my definition of faith the above examples are not issues of FAITH, but issues of unvalidated, but validatable knowledge AND probability based on past experience (where one does not have knowledge of the primary).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
