I began this blog with the first post on March 26, 2005, which was twenty years ago today. As milestones go, some might say this one’s kind of big. No doubt, when I first started this blog, I did not expect it to have such a run time. But here we are! It’s been a labor of love and frankly kind of addicting.
As in years past, I like to recap the previous year with links to entries since the last anniversary date:
530. Incincerating Presuppositionalism: Year Nineteen - March 26, 2024
531. Why are you an atheist? - April 26, 2024
532. Can an atheist have purpose? - May 27, 2024
533. Are you sure there’s no god? - June 30, 2024
534. can science answer the remaining mysteries of the universe? - July 28, 2024
535. Have you ever questioned your atheism? - August 21, 2024
536. Are you completely materialistic in your mindset? - September 28, 2024
537. If you were convinced there was a god, would that be good news? - October 27, 2024
538. What Does AI Have to Say About TAG? - November 30, 2024
539. Does My Atheism Make Me Closed-Minded? - December 27, 2024
540. Imagining Creation - January 27, 2025
541. Miracles and the Primacy of Consciousness - February 23, 2025
In recent years I have not been keeping up with the latest developments in presuppositionalism, simply because my time and focus are devoted to other responsibilities and interests. On those occasions when I do poke around for the latest goings-on, it seems that most of what I find are just stale rehashes of the same talking points. At this point, I cannot even say what I have seen actually amount to arguments as such. Presuppositionalism has in general been deficient in terms of actual arguments and heavy in offensive projection, relentless interrogation and unteachable echo-chambering. Apologetics is not actually about vindicating theism so much as it is to strengthen the believers commitment to his own confessional investment.
We should always remember that the Christian bible does not lay out an epistemology, which can only imply that there is no such thing as a distinctively Christian theory of knowledge. Questions probing how we know things ultimately cannot be answered by applying Christian epistemological principles, because there aren’t any. Apologetic strategies which insist that non-believers answer a series of “How do you know?” questions are inherently fraudulent to the extent that they imply the pretense to there being a means of knowing available to believers owing to the mere fact that they are professing believers.
Presuppositionalists focus their debate ploys on topics such as the necessary preconditions of knowledge, the justification of inductive reasoning, the foundations of morality, and the like. No doubt these are vitally important areas of philosophical inquiry. But they will never be settled by appealing to a worldview which ignores the fundamental distinction between the real and the imaginary. Genuine knowledge has its basis in facts, not in fantasy. The biblical worldview immerses the mind of the believer in a make-believe psychology and emboldens the believer to pretend that he knows things that he in fact does not know. It is on the basis of this delusion that he challenges non-believers to answer stock questions on the believer’s own terms, terms which evaporate immediately once it is pointed out that the imaginary is not real.
Their interrogations are answerable, and yet their own worldview cannot provide objective answers to their own interrogations. What are the necessary preconditions of knowledge? These are identified explicitly by the axioms of existence, consciousness and identity. Yet their own worldview wipes these fundamental truths off the table. How can inductive reasoning be justified? This is answered by the objective theory of concepts, yet their own worldview has no theory of concepts to begin with, not even a bad one. What is the basis of morality? This is the primacy of existence, yet their own worldview denies the primacy of existence by affirming a universe where wishing makes it so. Where did the universe come from? It came from existence, yet their worldview holds that existence is the product of divine fantasizing, something we never observe in reality, but nevertheless virtually anyone can imagine it.
As for the future of this blog, while part of me thinks that my work here is done (maybe overdone?), I am not committed to closing it all down for good. I reserve the prerogative to publish future entries as I see fit. But I may not be keeping even the meager pace I’ve had over the past several years going forward. While this has been a wonderful learning experience for me and it has allowed me to interact with many very intelligent people over the years from all walks of life, trying to find time to work on the next entry has become a bit of a chore for me given the wide variety of competing demands on my time. Moreover, as Bukowski would have said, it’s taken on a repeat, which I find unsettling. One reader commented some months ago that he rarely has time to read. That’s a sad statement, but it is every bit as true for me as well. My work and family life are breathtakingly busy, albeit highly rewarding in fact, and frankly I’m astounded that I’ve been able to keep this blog going as long as I have.
I would love to hear from readers on what they think I may have missed, overlooked or failed to address over the years, if just to see what anyone who may have followed my work might say on this front. That’s not a commitment to dive in and take on some new area of research, but I am curious and maybe other readers will be able to point to other sources that have attended those areas.
As always, thanks to everyone who reads, and special thanks to all who have taken time out of their lives to post their thoughts in the comments.
by Dawson Bethrick
9 comments:
Congratulations on another productive year, Dawson! I know that I will continue to appreciate and be enlightened by any future entries you may decide to post, no matter how rare that may be.
Thanks again!
Ydemoc
Wow, I had forgotten about your blog for so long now the name of it escaped me. I always remembered your "Cartoon Universe" post and I have to say I've used that argument over the years with theist. Where does time go? I'm sure you have a ton of stuff here I could never catch up on ( 20 years worth!) that's just as trenchant as " The Cartoon Universe".
If my memory serves you were involved in a message board debate I was having in (04?) someplace that I don't remember and I'm sure Id cringe if I were to revisit that discussion today . LOL and then at some point you invited me to follow you here. Good to see you still taking it to them though!
Dawson, you have done a thorough job here and presuppositionalism is in tatters. I don't know that there is anything left to say. Presuppossitionalists have stopped even trying to defend themselves here. When you have children it takes a lot of your time, and I don't think this blog is more important to you than your child or your family life. I'll continue to come and check in and I'll be re-reading your posts as long as they are available on the web. What an accomplishment!
Happy life,
Robert Kidd
It was closer to 25 years ago we crossed paths online arguing about this stuff. A few years later I found your blog and have looked in and circled back here and there ever since. You put me onto some of the most fundamental bits of philosophy when I was young and it has served me well.
What a body of work you've put together! The most comprehensive on the subject that exists. Something to be proud of, no matter how niche. I hope your personal life is at least half the masterpiece your work here has been.
Good afternoon, Dawson. I had something that I wanted your thoughts on and if this is the wrong place to do this you can delete it. I've been chewing on time, and I've come up with what I think is a good, objective definition of time.
Time is the conceptual measurement of relational motion or change, expressed in units or degrees.
I think this definition establishes time properly as epistemological in nature rather than metaphysical, as an independently existing entity imposed on reality externally. It establishes that it is a relational measurement within reality.
I think this conception of time answers a number of questions such as "What existed before the universe. As someone I was discussing this with pointed out. Reality does not need a beginning because it was never absent. but this conception of time also handles the problem of an eternal universe but finite time.
I know you are extremely busy, and if you don't have time I understand, but if you get some time I'd like to know your thoughts on this and if you could improve on my definition and help me to tighten it up further.
Thank you,
Robert Kidd
I don't think this is too off-topic as this is a question that theist seem to think cannot be answered sans a god.
Robert Kidd
Also this is my fefutation of the notion of the supernatural:
A thing's nature is its identity. And to exist means to be something of a specific nature, or identity (A is A, as opposed to not A). This means that there is a 100% concurrence of nature/identity and existence. Therefore, everything that exists is natural. Unnatural or supernatural things do not exist.
Robert Kidd
Hello Robert,
Thank you for your question. My apologies for such a late response. I hope everything is well for you.
You ask a good question in fact, especially with regard to apologetic defenses of theism. As you rightly point out, many thinkers suppose that questions like “Where did the universe come from?” or “What existed before the universe?” are valid and fundamental. I do not share this assessment. For one, such questions ignore the epistemological labor involved in knowledge acquisition. If I see a house on the side of the road and I’m asked: What was there before the house was built? What, am I omniscient or something? Am I supposed to just invent an answer so that I can say I have an answer?
When it comes to the universe, however, I think of such matters in terms of existence: to ask “Where did the universe come from?” is essentially no different, in my estimation, from asking “Where did existence come from?” (Why? Because: the universe is the sum totality of everything that exists.) Or similarly, “What existed before existence?” The answer to “what” would have to be something that exists, so such a question is self-defeating.
Framed in these terms, I think it becomes apparent that existence is an inescapable primary. Any question which asks “Where” something is or was must presuppose an answer located in existence, while the question implies that we can suppose of something existing outside of existence, which is a stolen concept.
As for the concept of time, I think you’re right to say that time is a form of measurement, and that what it measures is motion (here we relate time directly to causation, which is only possible in the context of existence – indeed, possibility as such is only possible within existence!). Peikoff’s words here provide valuable insight on this.
My view is that time is essentially epistemological rather than some metaphysical force or phenomenon, as is so often assumed. Measurement is a cognitive function. I’d even go so far as to say that motion as such is itself relational by its very nature, since motion is the action of some thing in relation to something else. When I raise my hand to grab my cup of coffee, the movement of my hand is in relation to where it was before I moved it and where it is in relation to my cup of coffee. So the relational aspect here is also inescapable.
Hope that helps!
Stay safe on those roads! Crazies everywhere.
Regards,
Dawson
Thank you, Dawson. I have been struggling with understanding time for many years, and I finally understand, really, how time does presuppose existence. I had the words before but hadn't fully integrated. Sorry to bother you with this but I have no one else to talk to. No one wants to discuss what is taken for granted. It integrates with my limited knowledge of the big bang, relativity, and Conformal Cyclic Cosmology. So long as something exists then there is a potential for motion or change and until change and motion happen time is a potential much like a particle is a potential or probabilistic until it is measured. The fourth dimension is the dimension of change. It's amazing how one integration strengthens all your knowledge.
It's so hard to find anyone to discuss this with. I am nestled in on my country estate three hours from the nearest city and the crazies. You live in California, don't you. Be watchful.
Thank you again,
Robert Kidd
Post a Comment