Advice to icontinent fallacy accusers

[ProfessorDavey]

Lewis writes more for the man and woman in the street he gets there I'm afraid more than Dawkins who has never had as common a touch and has after all been in competition with apathetic atheism.

Much as you probably don't like the comparison there are big parallels between Lewis and Dawkins - both academics who chose to move out of their area of expertise and become (for want of a better term) apologists for christianity and atheism.

I'd have to take issue with your comment about the 'man and woman in the street' - demonstrably Dawkins has the common touch with the 'man and woman in the street', evidence being the huge number of copies of his books bought by exactly those people. I doubt any of Lewis' Christian apologist books have been best sellers and shifted millions of copies. And by bestseller list I mean just that - all books - not best seller list for Christian apologist books from Oxford academics.

[ProfessorDavey]

Argumentum ad populum?

No - if you accept what is written in the bible thousands of people heard him, saw him etc - they weren't impressed - they chose not to believe the claim that he was son of god (whether he even made it). The point is that at the time when he was alive and teaching, he failed to convince all but a tiny minority of his most ardent fanatics.

Point is about the strength of his argument - or rather the lack thereof.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No.

How so?

[ProfessorDavey]

Perhaps he recognises it as a possibility in the same way Dawkins sees God as a possibility or Richard Carrier sees Jesus as a possibility.......I.e. Negligible and certainly not as you would have it the most likely.

What Lewis does - which I think is somewhat dishonest (albeit easily seen through) is demand that we make a judgement about Jesus  (which is, of course, ludicrous as none of us know him, have met him etc) rather than make a judgement about what we have been told in third party accounts about Jesus.

All we have are limited, partial (i.e. not neutral), non contemporary accounts that have been carefully selected centuries later to be the 'official' account to go on. In reality we can't make any kind of real judgement about Jesus as all we know is seen through a distorting prism - our judgement can only be about what we are told which may be a million miles from the reality.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What Lewis does - which I think is somewhat dishonest (albeit easily seen through) is demand that we make a judgement about Jesus  (which is, of course, ludicrous as none of us know him, have met him etc) rather than make a judgement about what we have been told in third party accounts about Jesus.

All we have are limited, partial (i.e. not neutral), non contemporary accounts that have been carefully selected centuries later to be the 'official' account to go on. In reality we can't make any kind of real judgement about Jesus as all we know is seen through a distorting prism - our judgement can only be about what we are told which may be a million miles from the reality.

Yes he is pro focus but then I'm sure Lewis knows that many will go back to being atheist without God for no reason it seems.......unless you can provide reasons for being an atheist?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Evasionist,

Yes he is pro focus but then I'm sure Lewis knows that many will go back to being atheist without God for no reason it seems.......unless you can provide reasons for being an atheist?

So just to be clear: you turn up here and tell a bunch of lies; you're called out on those lies; you just ignore the issue, and carry on with something else.

Is that how trolling 101 works then?

[SteveH]

Ah well, I've got the bit between my teeth now.   This is a famous piece from Lewis:

"Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen for certain physical or chemical reasons to arrange themselves in a certain way, that gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But if it is so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way the splash arranges will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I can't believe in thought; so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God." C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity.

This is just embarrassing, and the guy was a professor, wasn't he?   'Unless I believe in God, I can't believe in thought'.   It's quite sad, I suppose, but also anti-science, and just stupid.

What's wrong with the argument?

[Owlswing]

Not really - it is about adopting a robust and consistent approach.

If you don't accept NPF with regard to god (i.e. you think that there being no proof that god doesn't exist provides evidence that he/she/it does) then you are compelled, out of consistency, to apply the same standard to pixies, leprechauns, flying spaghetti monsters, invisible floating teapots and invisible pink unicorns etc.

. . . and Fluffy Pink Dragons . . .

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

What's wrong with the argument?

Lots of things. Just for starters though, his question “But if it is so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true?” is based on a false premise. It implies that there’s an absolute “true” to start with, and then posits a problem of how he could trust that he’d found it. Why though think either that there is an absolute true, or that our brains are sufficient to know what it would be in any case?

“True” is a probabilistic term – based on the logic, the evidence, our ability to reason etc we come up with truths that are just as true as we can establish them to be and no more – “true enough” if you will.

Thus 2+2=4 is “true enough” true but no more. Whether we’re just quants of data in a celestial kid’s computer game programmed to make us think that though is unknowable.   

[wigginhall]

What's wrong with the argument?

Quite a few things.   He treats evolution as random, hence the spilled milk analogy - but it isn't.    So the brain is not some accidental product. 

Trusting your own thinking is a practical thing, not decided by the origin of thinking.   In fact, you could argue that cognition is to an extent unreliable, but we are able to use it as a good enough tool, which we learn to use by practice.

The idea that believing in God helps you trust thought is bizarre.   Watch children gradually learning all kinds of cognitive tasks, they don't do this via belief in God, but trial and error, with some instruction.   And of course, they make tons of mistakes, and learn from them. 

'The arguments leading to atheism' - eh?   Atheism is a lack of belief. 

'It is merely that ...' is a give away, as with the use of the word 'just' by some people.   Used  as pejorative words.  So, biology is some crummy kind of subject, whereas creationism is exalted and grand.

[Udayana]

SteveH,

...
Thus 2+2=4 is “true enough” true but no more. Whether we’re just quants of data in a celestial kid’s computer game programmed to make us think that though is unknowable.

er.. "true enough"? No it's true whether or not we exist in some cosmic game .. because it is true in the game we have constructed.,. outside of that it is gibberish.

[SteveH]

SteveH,

Lots of things. Just for starters though, his question “But if it is so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true?” is based on a false premise. It implies that there’s an absolute “true” to start with, and then posits a problem of how he could trust that he’d found it. Why though think either that there is an absolute true, or that our brains are sufficient to know what it would be in any case?

“True” is a probabilistic term – based on the logic, the evidence, our ability to reason etc we come up with truths that are just as true as we can establish them to be and no more – “true enough” if you will.

Thus 2+2=4 is “true enough” true but no more. Whether we’re just quants of data in a celestial kid’s computer game programmed to make us think that though is unknowable.

What a load of pseudo-intellectual, terminally confused bollocks.

[Shaker]

What a load of pseudo-intellectual, terminally confused bollocks.

It would be useful and more constructive if you could say why you think so, but I'm not hopeful.

[SteveH]

It would be useful and more constructive if you could say why you think so, but I'm not hopeful.

He was talking about epiphenominalism, the idea that out thoughts, beliefs, ideas and everthing else that form our consciousness are merely a by-product of electrical and chemical changes occurring in our brain, which evolved to help us survive, not to think accurately about abstract things. It is widely agreed that that is self-defeating, as it is an argument against the possibility of arguments: if our thoughts are no more than that, we have no reason to rely on them, including the thought that our thoughts are the by-product of electrical and chemical changes in our brain. All your guff about absolute truth is irrelevant. If our brains are nothing but evolved survival machines, and our thoughts merely a by-product of them, how do you know that "truth is probabilistic"?

[ProfessorDavey]

He was talking about epiphenominalism, the idea that out thoughts, beliefs, ideas and everthing else that form our consciousness are merely a by-product of electrical and chemical changes occurring in our brain, which evolved to help us survive

Agree broadly so far (except for your dismissive word 'merely'). And actually our what we describe as thoughts aren't really a by-product (suggesting there is a 'main' product) - no ur thoughts are how we experience certain electrical and chemical stimuli - they are the product, not the by product.

not to think accurately about abstract things.

Nope - abstract thought is a by-product of the ability for higher conscious thought and likely to be involved in creative though which is fundamental to our survival. Indeed one of the main reasons why humans have been so successful in evolutionary terms is their ability to think creatively (driven from abstract thought) and to put that creativity in practice whether directly practically to solve problems or to cement society and culture.

It is widely agreed that that is self-defeating

Widely accepted? By whom, evidence please.
[/quote]

[SteveH]

Re. your last question - by C.E.M.Joad, for one, and J.B.S.Haldane, for another: JBSH famously said "It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."

[SteveH]

Abstract thought may be fundamental to our survival, as you suggest, but that doesn't guarantee its reliability. It may be advantageous to our survival to believe certain things which are not true; some argue that religion is an example of that.

[Shaker]

Re. your last question - by C.E.M.Joad, for one, and J.B.S.Haldane, for another: JBSH famously said "It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."

So? This is the so-called evolutionary argument against naturalism - you know, the one that curiously omits evolution - and was wrong when Haldane stated it as it's wrong when Plantinga does nowadays.

[SteveH]

Thus 2+2=4 is “true enough” true but no more.

This is obviously not the case; maths is absolutely true beyond a peradventure, because it is deductive, not inductive. However, I disagree with Udayana that maths is merely a game we have constructed: numbers are abstract, but they can refer to objects: apples, bicycles, etc. If I take two apples and add two more, I will always get four. It is inconceivable that any society has developed a number-system in which 2+2=5 (whatever symbols they use to represent "2" and "5"). Maths can be used to solve complex real-world problems, and to make predictions such as the date of the next total eclipse visible in the UK, so it can't be purely a human game.

[SteveH]

So? This is the so-called evolutionary argument against naturalism - you know, the one that curiously omits evolution - and was wrong when Haldane stated it as it's wrong when Plantinga does nowadays.

Why?
Incidentally, I've corrected the typo in the thread title for this post, because it pisses me off every time I come here. Could the admin possibly alter it in the opening post, so that it appears correctly in the board index?

[Shaker]

Why?

Because it simply ignores the most basic and obvious rebuttal. Nobody claims that our senses give us a 100% accurate depiction of reality 100% of the time, but sensory perception has to be broadly accurate most of the time or an organism will find itself an evolutionary dead end in very short order. Perception has to be mostly right most of the time to allow an organism to evade predators and avoid danger.

In Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Douglas Adams invented the Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses, a pair of shades whose lenses turn completely opaque in any dangerous situation, based on the (obviously false) principle that what you don't know can't hurt you - it doesn't stop the danger, you just can't see it. So if you're crossing the road and see a bus bearing down on you at speed, or a tiger leaps out of the undergrowth at you, your sunglasses turn totally black so you can't see yourself being creamed under a bus or turned into mince by a large felid.

The EAN proceeds on the basis that all organisms already wear the Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses, in effect. They don't. It's cobblers.

[SteveH]

Because it simply ignores the most basic and obvious rebuttal. Nobody claims that our senses give us a 100% accurate depiction of reality 100% of the time, but sensory perception has to be broadly accurate most of the time or an organism will find itself an evolutionary dead end in very short order. Perception has to be mostly right most of the time to allow an organism to evade predators and avoid danger.

In Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Douglas Adams invented the Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses, a pair of shades whose lenses turn completely opaque in any dangerous situation, based on the (obviously false) principle that what you don't know can't hurt you - it doesn't stop the danger, you just can't see it. So if you're crossing the road and see a bus bearing down on you at speed, or a tiger leaps out of the undergrowth at you, your sunglasses turn totally black so you can't see yourself being creamed under a bus or turned into mince by a large felid.

The EAN proceeds on the basis that all organisms already wear the Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses, in effect. They don't. It's cobblers.

For everyday perception of the world around us, maybe, but it doesn't apply to more arcane stuff like advanced science or philosophy.

[ProfessorDavey]

C.E.M.Joad, for one, and J.B.S.Haldane

Firstly the opinions of 2 people hardly justifies your claim that 'It is widely agreed that that is self-defeating'.

Secondly - Joad was a philosopher, Haldane was an evolutionary geneticist - we are discussing neuroscience and cognitive science - neither were experts in this field so their opinion in an area outside (Haldane) and massively outside (Joad) their area of expertise is rather irrelevant.

Thirdly both have been dead for more than 50 years - neuroscience has moved on massively just in the past 10 years and is unrecognisible from the middle of the 20th century. Therefore they cannot be acquainted with current knowledge and understanding of neurophysiology and its relationship to behaviour, cognition and psychology for the simple reason that they have been dead for during the period of the neuroscience revolution.

Finally, your quote from Haldane (famous you claim - I've never heard it before) is merely an opinion (and from 1927!), an assertion without any evidential base to support it. And actually the evidence does not support it as we know without a shadow of doubt that our thought etc can be faulty. So Haldane opines that:

'For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true.'

And of course there is no reason to suppose that beliefs are true and often they can be demonstrated not to be true.

'And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.'

In which case what exactly is the brain composed of? If anything is 'widely accepted' I think it would be that our brains are composed of atoms.

[SteveH]

Firstly the opinions of 2 people hardly justifies your claim that 'It is widely agreed that that is self-defeating'.

Secondly - Joad was a philosopher, Haldane was an evolutionary geneticist - we are discussing neuroscience and cognitive science - neither were experts in this field so their opinion in an area outside (Haldane) and massively outside (Joad) their area of expertise is rather irrelevant.

Thirdly both have been dead for more than 50 years - neuroscience has moved on massively just in the past 10 years and is unrecognisible from the middle of the 20th century. Therefore they cannot be acquainted with current knowledge and understanding of neurophysiology and its relationship to behaviour, cognition and psychology for the simple reason that they have been dead for during the period of the neuroscience revolution.

Finally, your quote from Haldane (famous you claim - I've never heard it before) is merely an opinion (and from 1927!), an assertion without any evidential base to support it. And actually the evidence does not support it as we know without a shadow of doubt that our thought etc can be faulty. So Haldane opines that:

'For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true.'

And of course there is no reason to suppose that beliefs are true and often they can be demonstrated not to be true.

'And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.'

In which case what exactly is the brain composed of? If anything is 'widely accepted' I think it would be that our brains are composed of atoms.

You have obviously completely failed to understand what Haldane, Joad and Lewis were saying. I'm fed up with arguing with logorrhoeic idiots, so I'm off this thread (though I'll probably break that promise, going by past form).

[ProfessorDavey]

You have obviously completely failed to understand what Haldane, Joad and Lewis were saying. I'm fed up with arguing with logorrhoeic idiots, so I'm off this thread (though I'll probably break that promise, going by past form).

No I disagree with them and in every case their views are understandably woefully ill informed as they cannot have taken account of the massive increase in knowledge over recent decades, for the simply reason that they have all been dead for over 50 years.

And I would suggest that you retract your claim that I (presumably you are aiming this at me) am a logorrheic idiot. You seem to take note of academics (Haldane, Joad, Lewis), well I too am a senior academic and while my own personal research isn't directly neuroscience my area is certainly closer to it than Lewis or Joad - arguable about Haldane. However I am also strategically responsible for all research in my area of my university (a prestigious one) and that area includes neuroscience, behavioural science, cognition science and psychology - which includes researchers working at the cutting edge of those fields based on knowledge in 2017, not in 1927.