Sunday, May 22, 2016

circualr reasoning at the heart of naturalism

Photobucket
pie charts from Pew study




I have always contended that naturalism, the idea that the natural world is all there, is based upon circular reasoning. It works like this, all evidence for anything beyond the nature is discounted on the premise that there can't be anything beyond the natural. Then the idea that there can't be anything beyond the natural is supported by the "fact" that there is no proof for anything beyond it. But the only reason there is no proof is because it's already been ruled out by the assumption which is nothing more than begging the question. Even when empirical evidence is presented it doesn't matter because the skeptics just poo poo the evidence based upon the question begging assumptions.

The initial context is that I had given an exposition on the making of the Gospels in which I said they are redacted. But he said I'm white washing it becuase I don't say that redaction = being totally false lies garbage ect.

Here's how this played out on CARM the other day. this could actually be a textbook case.





Dale on carm

http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?p=4874846&posted=1#post4874846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post

why would it be whitewashing if I say the whole is redacted?

Dale:
It’s whitewashing because you are obviously trying to downplay the zombies of matthew 27 because it obviously didn’t happen.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
If I am saying much more than [that]


Dale:

Remember that this started when I simply requested, in a thread about archaeological evidence for Jesus, that I be informed should any contemporary chronicles recording the zombie incident turn up. It seems like a perfectly reasonable request to me. You certainly wouldn’t be so agitated about it if there was any such evidence.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
since you don't know anything about theology or textual criticism you don't know anything about liberal belief so what exactly am I gullible about? Why would you think that, not knowing anything about my beliefs?


Dale:
The only thing I claimed to know about your beliefs was that you weren’t a fundie which is evident from your writing. You don’t need any degrees in theology or specialist knowledge in textual criticism to confidently say that if, and again I say if, somebody believes that the dead have climbed out of their graves and walked into Jerusalem then they are definitely far too gullible for their own good.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post

how do you know it was an eclipse? that's ruled out by the time year.

Dale:
I don’t know anything about it except that an eclipse is a far more likely explanation for any alleged darkness at noon.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post

look at the circular nature of your reasoning. I say "maybe they did talk about it but we don't have the records because we don' have a lot or records, here's a reason to think maybe that's true because talk about this other thing (darkness at noon)." So you decide that means they talk about one and not the other. what part of "we don't' have records" can you not understand?
(in other words I'm saying because they talked aobut the darnkess at noon there's a chance they talked about the resurrectees but we just don't have the records).




Dale:
What part of the absurdity of trying to assert that alleged traces of historical records noting an eclipse is evidence in support of a truly sensational extraordinary event which went unremarked upon do you not understand.

(Of course I didn't use the one as evidence of the other, just as an example of something atheits always say we don' thave (record of the darkenss) but we actaully do have it, and due to the time of year of Passover it would not have been a eclipse}.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post

cant you see how illogical and chaotic your thinking is?


what does it mean to be "telling" If something is not "evidence? what does "telling" mean apart from evidence? It can be telling if your bigoted and your willing to let the lack of evidence feed your suspicions> It can be "telling" if you are obsessed with hate and the evidence in everything.

Dale:
Alleged traces of historical records noting an eclipse but a truly sensational extraordinary event which went unremarked upon! Read that again…a truly sensational extraordinary event which nobody but author of the Book of Matthew made a record of. I acknowledge, again, that absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. But the fact that there is nothing is perfectly in keeping with the obvious conclusion that this ridiculous zombie incident didn’t happen in the first place. Your charges of bigotry and hatred as being my problem here are equally ridiculous. You really must try and remain calm when confronted by people who aren’t cowed by your presumption that everybody must agree with you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
I bet you pride yourself on being open minded. it's really sad how self deceived we can be.

Dale:
I don’t necessarily think it’s a matter of pride but I do consider myself open minded but not to the point that my brains are going to fall out.

you haven't said anything is wrong wtih the evidence. you just assume it can't be true a prori. I did point out thee is evdience of the darkness and it can't be an eclipse

l-aid!!

2 comments:

Ryan M said...

If naturalism is the belief that only the natural world exists then you have not shown that naturalism is circular. If naturalism is true as you characterize it then we have no idea of what epistemic theories are true, so we cannot say exactly how naturalism would be known to be true if naturalism is true. You basically asserted naturalism implies that we can only know natural things exist because no non natural thing exists. But naturalism as you defined it does not imply that. There is no reason in your post for someone who self identifies as a naturalist to agree with the epistemic standards you describe naturalism implies.

Joe Hinman said...

Naturalism in pure theory does not that true. Naturalism as it works out argued my most atheists does. That mean many atheists make a mistake in understanding their own theory, and perhaps I am remiss for not saying that.,