Atheistwatch: Atheists Deny the Norm of Truth: Tillich's Impied OA

Paul Tillich

Originally Posted by Metacrock

Empirical knowledge is not the only from of Knowledge.

I. Argument: knowledge is more than just empirical observation, there is a norm of truth.

Duane Olsen's argument that Tillich has an implied ontolgocal argument in the ground of being and the norm of truth.

(quote)

The indubitability of the norm of truth is shown by a reductio argument regarding the process of knowing. In different places and in different ways Tillich points out that denial and doubt in knowing presuppose the norm of truth.[xvii] I want to systematize Tillich’s reductio argument at this point to show that all major theoretical postures presuppose this norm.

We can imagine four major postures taken by a subject to any theoretical judgment. One could affirm the judgment, claiming it corresponds with reality; one could deny the judgment, claiming it does not correspond; one could doubt, question, and debate the judgment; or one could claim a decision cannot be made about the judgment. All of the options presuppose the subject’s ability to apply a correspondence-norm, or norm of truth. Certainly one must apply a norm to affirm a judgment. One must also apply a norm, however, to deny a judgment. Any negative judgment presupposes and lives from the positive bearing of a norm of truth by the subject. One cannot deny that a judgment corresponds to reality without presupposing the subject’s ability to make judgments about reality. Doubting, questioning, or debating a judgment presuppose a norm of truth as well. One could not debate the veracity of a judgment without presupposing the capacity in the debaters to determine that veracity. Doubting or questioning a judgment is only meaningful under the presupposition of a norm that gives validity to that questioning and doubting. Finally, the claim that one cannot know whether a judgment is true presupposes the bearing of a norm to determine how or why a decision cannot be made.

It is important to note that the argument for a correspondence-norm, or norm of truth, is on a different level than arguments about the specific nature of the correspondence between subject and object. The correspondence itself may be conceived in terms of naïve realism, idealism, or a multitude of positions in between. Every theory about the nature of the correspondence, however, relies on the presupposition of a correspondence-norm that would make it possible to formulate, and affirm, deny, debate, or declare uncertain that theory. Put differently, the theory of the specific nature of the correspondence between subject and object is another field of knowledge that is subject to the ultimate criterion of knowledge, which is what is disclosed in the idea of a correspondence-norm.

To claim that the capacity to apply a norm is indubitable is the same thing as saying the subject bears an indubitable awareness of truth. In other words, when one analyzes the major postures toward judgments and shows how a norm of truth is presupposed as something borne by the subject in every posture, one is pointing out an awareness of truth the subject has, though it is something the subject may overlook, especially in doubting or denying particular truths. Through the reductio argument, one focuses attention on the fact that the subject bears a norm of truth, thus raising it to conscious awareness. I speak more below about the character of this awareness, but for now I simply affirm something Tillich presupposes, which is the identity between the affirmation that the subject bears a norm of truth and the subject’s awareness of this norm.[v](closed quote)

NONAME

Duane Olsen teaches at a private Christian college. I see that a a strike against him. No more or less reputable than this guy:
(website as follows) mormonhistoricsitesfoundation.org/about/baugh.htm

Because he can compare Olsen to Joseph Smith that proves he's no good? Even though the two have nothing to do with each other. Olsen's knowledge of philosophy is excellent, professional and graduate level and Smith's was non-existent, we are still supposed to put Olsen on the level of Smith, why? because the all knowing anti-intellectual says to.

argument from analogy, and a bad one.

this is obviously going to far and I have to say this in the strongest terms. This is nothing more than bigotry and a refusal to think masked as some sort of religious indignation but at beast it's nothing more than incredulity at work. I've seen this atheist gimmick at work before: shut down any sort of evidence that that counts against one's position on some made up grounds such as "this perosn i the person that he is so that disqualifies him becasue he disagrees with me."

Look, you are here to argue with religion. So instead of arraign with a regions person, who knows his philosophy, you just go "this guy is religious and religious is bad so therefore I'm excused form listing he's wrong a priori tart's all there is. amen.

where's the proof. the proof is he's not agreeing with me. then when I say "you are an ideologue he gets angry and says "O how dare, I've told you before there is o atheist ideology. Dismissing arguments because they are by your opponents is nothing more than ideolgoical move! scream until you are blue that you don't have an ideology then you make moves likes an ideologue. There is no difference in saying "I am NOT going to listen to him because he's a religious person" and saying "I'm not going to listen to him because he's on the other side. which is just saying I"m not going to think.

I wont listen to him because he's a Jew, or the a communist, or he's black, or he's white, she's a feminist. If these rub you the wrong way, that's just what you are doing, you are not doing it against a group you hate, so you think it's cool. This what ideologues do! that's ideology!!!!

The really puerile thing about it is if you actually read the article and if you understood what it says you would see that he knows his stuff. So an argument that being form a small private Christian college means he doesn't know what he's talking about is just wrong headed, he does. The fact of the matter is if the fundies at his school took what he says seriously they would have to take a giant step away form fundamentalism.

Understanding Tillich is liberating form fundamentalism a prori. If to disagree with it is one thing, but even if you disagree just to undersatnd it requires a level of education such that one is less of a fundie than before. It's quite self defeating for atheists dismiss religoius thinkers a prori just for being religious. That's what's wrong with the accommodation argument.

Noname Again:

"Basically the quote from Olsen in just word salad that could be used to rationalize anything. I see this as an argument against rather than for Christianity simply because this level of mental gymnastics needs to be resorted to. Past experience tells me that if the word salad was put in plain language it would appear silly and Christians would get upset."

This is a self contradictory statement. this statement tells us two things. It tell us that he doesn't understand the Olsen article, and that his reaction to ti is mere knee jerk becasue he doesn't undersatnd it.

He calls it mental gymnastics but that just proves he doesn't understand it because it's quite cogent and if he really understood it he would see that. I see it, others whose opinions I respect and who have graduate level knowledge have read it and this so too.

Obviously he doesn't understand it. Then to say "word salad" all that means is he can't follow an arguemnt that's made at an academic level.

these guys who are so anti-knowledge and anti-intellectual who hate big words and think up insulting epithets for knowledge and erudition, (like "word salad" using big word whut I doesn't know) they are decrying their ignorance but we mustn't make them feel that they don't know anything becuase that's insulting. never mind how insulting it is that he refuses to consider an opponent just becuase he is on the other side, or that he refuses to learn or the follow the issues.

We must cater to the anti-intellectual becuase the school system has raised them to believe they are exempt form having to learn anything and their sense of entitlement is through the roof.

Metacrock's version is much clearer: