Round 4

From Agnostic Australian 5/20/05

Hello Brady. 

Brady wrote: Concluding, since the way I am using "inability" is absolute and not contingent, the assertion of argumentum ad ignorantium is false. 

Okay. I misread your statement as meaning that, as yet, you had met only incompetent atheists ;-) 

Brady wrote: http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/knowledge.htm 

Okay. 

The argument presented is nothing more than the cosmological argument in drag. As I said earlier, I do not find the cosmological argument convincing. For the same reason, I do not find this "epistemic argument" convincing (nor the "moral argument", nor any other infinite regress argument). It is not surprising that there are so many of these infinite regress arguments. Wherever there is progress it may be considered in reverse as regress and, naïvely, extended indefinitely. 

One fallacy in all of these arguments is to speak of an infinite regress but to take it only one step further. If instead you argued for an infinite regress of "gods" at least you would be consistent on that count. The view of Foundationalists and Coherentists is to deny the necessity of an infinite regress. Rather, Foundationalists take certain axioms as given to bootstrap their epistemology; Coherentists maintain a "soup" of hypotheses. 

Brady wrote: Yes I do. From an atheist view, there is no answer for the above reason. From a theist view, there is. Part of the theist cosmology is that God created a world meant to be known and created creatures meant to know it. These elements of our cosmology allow us to get to an epistemology that is coherent and cohesive. 

Okay. I take it that you believe either AG or DG because otherwise you could not, with confidence, make observations corresponding to reality to support HG, yes? In this case you take as a priori knowledge the proposition of god (PG = AG | DG). Let us define the proposition of correspondence (PC) as the belief that it is possible, with confidence, to make observations corresponding to reality. Your claim is that PG implies PC and that this gives you CCE with certainty, yes? In which case you are a Foundationalist. 

Firstly, why, then, do you reject the view of other Foundationalists who assert PC without PG and thereby obtain CCE with certainty? Secondly, even if pressed for a "cause" of PC, there are many possibilities. Your claim that "god" explains PC is about as convincing and meaningful as the claim that "hyper-quantum-synergy" explains PC. Even if PG implies PC this is no proof that PC implies PG. 

Further, your a priori set, namely {PC, PG}, is a superset of a minimal a priori set that provides CCE, namely {PC}. What advantage is there in taking the superset when the minimal set provides CCE and when the superset may produce a contradiction that the minimal set does not. That is, by choosing the superset, you have, at best, a creation myth that is consistent with PC; at worst you find yourself trying to explain the contradictions and errors in your choice of holy books and struggling to understand why your choice of "god" supposedly once commanded genocide (1 Samuel 15:3). 

I do not find "infinite" regress arguments convincing. Perhaps you have something else? 

Kind regards, 

Australian Agnostic

From Brady 5/25/05

Greetings AA,

AA wrote concerning Manion’s paper: The argument presented is nothing more than the cosmological argument in drag. As I said earlier, I do not find the cosmological argument convincing. For the same reason, I do not find this "epistemic argument" convincing (nor the "moral argument", nor any other infinite regress argument). It is not surprising that there are so many of these infinite regress arguments. Wherever there is progress it may be considered in reverse as regress and, naïvely, extended indefinitely. 

Having written a version of the cosmological argument myself, I don’t see how this is a cosmological argument. Most of the cosmological arguments attempt to show that because the universe exists, a creator is needed. However, Manion’s argument shows that the atheist position does not have the needed elements to produce a coherent epistemology. Therefore, if knowledge exists, the atheist world view is necessarily false.

The only way, I can see, that this would be unconvincing is if one were able to show the elements in the atheistic cosmology that allowed for a coherent epistemology. It is only a coherent epistemology that acts as a defeater to this argument. And since most modern atheistic philosophers have already thrown in the towel on this, as Manion points out in his paper, I don’t think his conclusion is in any danger of refutation. Of course I could be wrong. Perhaps you have the answer?

I don’t understand your reference to Manion’s argument as an infinite regress argument. He only touches on that topic in passing concerning one group whose attempts fail.

AA wrote: Okay. I take it that you believe either AG or DG because otherwise you could not, with confidence, make observations corresponding to reality to support HG, yes?...

I appreciate your effort here, but I think you missed the point Manion was making in his conclusion: If any atheist worldview is true, your comments are meaningless. If atheism is true, trying to communicate with words, sentences and paragraphs is futile. When you try to communicate in this manner, you are already assenting to the necessary truth of the theistic cosmology. Because of this every argument is an argument for the existence of God.  This is necessarily so, because the atheist world view does not have the necessary elements to support any sort of epistemology. So, when you argue for a position, you are not doing it from an atheistic position.

You see, you are assuming that you (a real self) exist; but, the atheistic cosmology does not have the needed elements that allow you to know that. You assume that you can know the world around you: but, the atheistic cosmology does not have the needed elements that allow you to know that. You assume that inductive and deductive logic are universal and imposes some sort of order on reality and our conclusions about reality; but, the atheistic cosmology does not have the needed elements that allow you to know that. You are assuming that words and sentences have real meaning that can be communicated: but, the atheistic cosmology does not have the needed elements that allow you to know that.

As I said before, if atheism is true, we can know nothing. If we indeed do know things, then atheism is necessarily false. If atheism is necessarily false, then not atheism is true. Not atheism is some sort of theism. So, some sort of theism is true, because of the impossibility of the contrary. Since some sort of theism is true, agnosticism concerning the God question is also not tenantable.

Regards, 

Brady