tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post2752785764457778753..comments2024-03-27T09:11:00.450-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: The Uniformity of NatureBahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-34708203326524364602017-07-05T10:15:06.767-04:002017-07-05T10:15:06.767-04:00Dawson reasoned:
Once nature’s “behavior” is pl...Dawson reasoned:<br /><br /> <i> Once nature’s “behavior” is placed in the hands of a consciousness which is supposed to possess the power to “control whatsoever comes to pass,” anything can happen. Uniformity is a once-in-a-million chance. The fact that nature is uniform, only demonstrates that there is no rational basis to put any stock in the presuppositionalist’s “account for” the uniformity of nature which is clearly observed. </i><br /><br />Christian doctrine of Yahweh’s divine attribute of contra casual free will contradicts the doctrine Yahweh is perfectly rational. Yahweh can’t be the later if it possesses the former and vice versa. If Yahweh is rational, then it’s decisions are caused by deliberation via reasoning, but if Yahweh has contra casual free will it’ decisions aren’t caused by any antecedent state, and in that case it can’t know when where or how it will intervene in reality with a magic miracle, so it can’t be truly Omniscient. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-56856211367224491742014-02-27T19:45:09.972-05:002014-02-27T19:45:09.972-05:00Another point, Robert.
By shutting off looking ou...Another point, Robert.<br /><br />By shutting off <i>looking outward</i> as the means of acquiring knowledge, and by making the testimony of an "authority" the only means of securing knowledge, the knowledge available to man on such a view can only be <i>secondhanded</i> in nature. But even here Gaura is not consistent, as his example of his mother as the source of knowing who one's father illustrates. Presumably it's okay for one's mother to acquire knowledge firsthand, but not the adherent himself. How do I know what I had for breakfast this morning? My mother wasn't there, so I can't ask her. But I was there - why can't I know this? But that's when we're back to the four axioms Gaura begins with. By why wouldn't they apply then also to one's mother? His attempt to illustrate his point is inconsistent with his overall epistemology, and yet that attempt to illustrate his point is given as an analogy for the situation we allegedly find ourselves in.<br /><br />Then in determining which authority we should go with (there are many competitors here), how can we do this reliably if we cannot trust our own faculties? Gaura does not address this. But that should not surprise us.<br /><br />Considering his axioms individually:<br /><br /><< 1. We make mistakes >><br /><br />Yes, we can make mistakes, and often do. But that’s why we need reason. Gaura does not recommend that we go with reason. He recommends that we surrender our rational faculties entirely and subjugate our minds to an “authority” of his choice.<br /><br /><< 2. We are subject to illusion >><br /><br />What exactly does this mean, and how does Gaura know this? Can he give an example? Suppose we’re in a desert and we think we see a lake in the distance. Is this an “illusion”? Are our senses deceiving us? No, they aren’t. We are seeing what we see, and our senses give us an entire context. In fact, they’re very accurate in this sense. The error is in our <i>identification</i> of what we are perceiving. And lo, when we get closer to where we think we’ve seen a lake, we find that there is no lake. How? By using our senses. So the claim that “we are subject to illusion” is self-defeating and misrepresents the nature of reason. <br /><br /><< 3. We have a cheating propensity >><br /><br />I take this as an autobiographical statement – it’s Gaura speaking about himself. He’s also telling us about his Lord Krishna – where did we get this “cheating propensity”? On his view, from his Lord. <br /><br /><< 4. We have imperfect senses >><br /><br />What would “perfect senses” be? I’m quite happy with mine. They serve me well!<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-85039076240068572032014-02-27T18:39:19.906-05:002014-02-27T18:39:19.906-05:00Hi Robert,
Interesting find. Thanks for posting i...Hi Robert,<br /><br />Interesting find. Thanks for posting it. Here are some initial thoughts.<br /><br />Broadly speaking, Gaura’s apologetic approach is to shut off <i>looking outward</i> as the means of acquiring knowledge of reality by dooming it from the very starting point. The implication of his four axioms is that knowledge acquired by <i>looking outward</i> “will be limited and faulty.” It seems that Lord Krishna has sabotaged the human faculty at the “seed” level.<br /><br />But let’s consider: to affirm these axioms as true, we need a means of knowledge by which we can discover that they are true. How do we do this without <i>looking outward</i> and thus undercutting our conclusion? He says “we make mistakes.” How does he know this? By <i>looking outward</i>? He says “we are subject to illusion”? Really how does he know this? And so on. <br /><br />In his illustration of how one finds out who his father is, he recommends consulting one’s mother: “she is the authority on who your Father is.” This is because “her experience is beyond yours.” But again, by what means did she discover who fathered her children? By <i>looking outward</i>? If so, why isn’t the knowledge she gathered on this basis also “limited and faulty,” and therefore untrustworthy? Gaura does not explain this.<br /><br />Primitive worldviews are always authority-based – i.e., they require the adherent to surrender his own rational faculties in deference to someone deemed to be an authority whose affirmations are to be accepted without question. The goal of such worldviews is to subjugate people within a social hierarchy. Presumably this authority is not saddled with the defects that doom our minds and can discover knowledge reliably by <i>looking outward</i>. But how would we know this? If the authority itself is outside us, we cannot discover its nature by <i>looking inward</i>, for <i>looking inward</i> does not get us in cognitive contact with what’s outside us. But <i>looking outward</i> has already been closed off as a viable option. <br /><br />The only option is to simply and blindly accept the premise that one’s own mind is ultimately unreliable, untrustworthy, incompetent. But this acceptance itself is a cognitive act and can only be performed either by making some kind of assessment (which, to be consistent with the premise in question, must itself be unreliable, untrustworthy and incompetent) or by simply checking out and evading the task of thinking. Populations of human beings who have checked out on their own minds, who have sacrificed reason, are of course easily dominated and cannot be free. They are forever dependents on the authority structure of the social hierarchy into which their worldview has embedded them. And it’s all accomplished on a string of lies.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-41011523600565955162014-02-27T13:20:38.375-05:002014-02-27T13:20:38.375-05:00Hello Dawson. Here's a bit interesting presup...Hello Dawson. Here's a bit interesting presuppositional apologetic from the Vedic tradition I found on the facebook offical atheism vs theism group.<br /><br /><br />Gaura Das(fb user handle) It depends what you define to be evidence. I can't see your intelligence, but I can se the symptoms of it. There is inductive and deductive knowledge. Inductive knowledge is based upon the ascending process based upon the four defects of the conditioned soul :<br /><br />1. We make mistakes<br />2. We are subject to illusion<br />3. We have a cheating propensity<br />4. We have imperfect senses<br /><br />ANy knowledge gathered on the basis of our conditioned existence will be limited and faulty. <br /><br />Accepting knowledge from higher authority , that which lies beyond our perception is perfect. If you didnt know who your father was , what is the easest way to find out ?<br /><br />Is it by asking everyone in your city ? Is it by going through the files of hospitals ? Is it by any hypothesis based upon imperfect senses ? No. You ask your Mother. She is the authority on who your Father is. Her experience is beyond yours. Similarly, the Vedic literatures are like our Mother, because the Vedas give perfect knowledge on who the original seed-giving Father is, Lord KrishnaAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-11878480391905389892012-02-20T15:24:12.690-05:002012-02-20T15:24:12.690-05:00Hello Dawson: Wow. Really good. Thanks for taking ...Hello Dawson: Wow. Really good. Thanks for taking time to think this one through and write it down. Best Wishes.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.com