tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post2684396382443221149..comments2024-03-27T09:11:00.450-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: "What would convince you?"Bahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-89902348324910930692018-01-01T12:45:27.984-05:002018-01-01T12:45:27.984-05:00Hey Dawson,
Happy New Year!
Here are the first f...Hey Dawson,<br /><br />Happy New Year!<br /><br />Here are the first five points on your list of "what would need to be satisfied in order to even warrant reconsideration of [your] position on the question of god-belief":<br /><br />1. Evidence that consciousness holds metaphysical primacy over its objects. <br />2. Evidence that wishing makes it so. <br />3. An objectively reliable means of distinguishing between what believers call "God" and what they are merely imagining. <br />4. Evidence that contradictions exist in reality. <br />5. Evidence that stolen concepts are not fallacious. <br /><br />What hit me right away about points 1, 2, 4 and 5 is that for any of these to obtain (as if that were even possible), it would serve to undercut the very foundation upon which the very concept "evidence" relies. <br /><br />For example, if there is "[e]vidence that contradictions exist in reality" ( i.e., that something might not be what it is), then how could we ever be sure that "evidence" really IS evidence? Or that a question really is a question? Or that a turkey isn't a bugle? Or that your latest entry really isn't really a basketball? Or that my opening greeting of "Happy New Year!" wasn't really a gas pump. Etc., etc., etc.<br /><br />We wouldn't be able to ever be sure. <br /><br />As you correctly point out later on in your piece: <br /><br />"Indeed, what would objectivity mixed with subjectivism even look like, if not a haphazard, internally inconsistent mélange of views? In which case, all objectivity would be obliterated."<br /><br />Thanks once again for another entry!<br /><br />Ydemoc<br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br />Ydemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-34605807595344161332017-12-29T13:22:40.313-05:002017-12-29T13:22:40.313-05:00Great insights, Dawson.
I’ve been a student of ob...Great insights, Dawson.<br /><br />I’ve been a student of objectivism for about 4 years now. Rand’s epistemology has changed my life. It’s added a clarity to my thinking that has far surpassed all the cumulative philosophical reading I had done for over 25 years.<br /><br />Thanks to you and your website (of which I’ve read and studied every submisssion and exchange), I have yet to find a Christian capable of contending with objectivism’s insights into human cognition, the hierarchical nature of knowledge (and its implications) and the emphasis on the primacy of existence. <br /><br />Why are there so few people aware of Rand’s glorious contribution to epistemology? The four atheist horsemen (Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and Dennett) are intellectual lightweights compared to how objectivism interfaces with Christian claims. As you rightly note, the question of god reduces to why one doesn’t believe in square circles. But the aforementioned horsemen seem to speak as if there just isn’t enough information to pronounce positively on the existence of god - never pausing long enough to make sense of the metaphysical orientation such a claim entails. <br /><br />Anyway, I wish there were more sites like yours, although yours would be a hard one to match. <br /><br />- James The Trainerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08081873338558591648noreply@blogger.com