NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/atheism/moderate/491

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 7.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!ibmpcug!mantis!news
From: Jeffrey D Koperski <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: RE: FAQ, 1/2
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:56:10 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Distribution: world
Organization: The Ohio State University
Approved: [e-mail]
Lines: 139

matthew:
>Philosophers are certainly experts when it comes to spotting fallacies in an
>argument, or telling you what so-and-so's argument actually is, but their
>opinion that some unspecified argument proves that God exists is worthless
>unless substantiated by reproducing the argument in question.
>
[paragraph deleted]

I think you underestimate the amount of knowledge we all
rightfully rely on that is handed to us by authority.  If no
authority is worthy of trust without presenting
the argument, evidence, and theory used at the very time
the claim is made, then all of our educations are worthless.
How much of the science you or I believe is something we came up
with?  Little, if any.  In fact, even a researcher only has the
tools and ability to test a very small part of the massive
package of knowledge that makes up science.  To say, "well I
could do such and such an experiment if I took the time to gain
the expertise" does not eliminate the problem.  It is physically
impossible, given our eighty odd years of life, to verify even
the small bits of science that most of us got as undergraduates.

Appeal to authority is often times fallacious, but when certain
conditions are met (see any intro. to logic text) such an appeal
is part of a valid argument.  But perhaps you take my claim to be
stronger than it is.  Philosophers are experts here in that
philosophy is the field that studies the arguments and evidence
for and against theism as part of the discipline (specifically
the sub-discipline of philosophy of religion).  Philosophers,
more than anyone else, have a grasp on the strengths and
weaknesses of both sides.  When I appeal to the philosophical
community, I am doing so to show that persons who are experts on
the debate take theism to be a rational option.  Theists are some
of the heavyweights in philosophy today.  I am not saying,
"Believe in God because Bas van Fraassen believes in God and he's
a lot smarter than you."  My claim here is that theism is
rational, not that God exists.  Now if the majority of
philosophers took theism to have been refuted, took such beliefs
to be untenable, or held that theists hold irrational believes
about God, then theists would be irrational and theism should be
rejected.  None of these disjuncts hold, however.

>>         many rational beliefs are false (consider the bulk of
>>         beliefs held by all physicists in the last century), but
>>         they are nonetheless rational until shown to be false or
>>         until the putative justification is removed.
>
>They are rational *even if* shown to be false.  "Rational" means that a
>process of reasoning was used; not that the right answer was arrived at.  For
>instance, you may have begun your rational deduction from false premises.

Hmm.  Well, I don't wish to sound like I'm attacking you or
putting you down in any way, but this is a rather naive view of
rationality.  In a loose and popular sense I suppose its okay,
but I can't allow my use of the term to be packaged this way.
One one hand, you're exactly right, rationality does not entail
truth as I pointed out in the paragraph you're commenting on.
Deductions aren't rational, however, they are valid or invalid,
sound or unsound all of which have technical meanings.  Rational
does not mean that a given reasoning process was used.  A large
number of my present, rational beliefs are completely non-
inferential.  For example, the belief that a coffee mug is on my
desk is rational and non-inferential.  Of course, having this
belief requires a large body of background knowledge and even
homespun metaphysical beliefs about identity in order to put it
into a statement, but such "reliance," whatever it is, is not
inference.  If you say, "no it really is inference" then you
will have very great difficulty indeed trying to explain how we
learn or how one breaks into a body of knowledge.

>
>>         When theists point to famous theistic scientists, they
>>         might be doing one of two things.  First, they might be
>>         making a fallacious appeal to authority, since, as you
>>         have pointed out, scientists are not the experts in the
>>         field when it comes to God.  Second, they might
>>         rightfully be showing that science has no intrinsic
>>         conflict with religion.
>
>The second is a valid point, but I don't think it's one that any atheist
>would disagree with, so why would theists feel the need to make it?

Mainly because I myself have been attacked with this very line.
It's a very bad point indeed, but so long as it comes spinning
my way, I feel the need to slap it down.  On occasion I glance
through alt.atheism and there it pops up with surprising
regularity.  Perhaps the readers of this board are of a higher
caliber!

>Science certainly contradicts much that is said in the Bible.  That doesn't
>make science contradict religion in general.  Just a peculiarly literalist
>interpretation of one particular religion.

I would be interested in hearing some examples.  Remember, a
contradiction is a declarative sentence in the form of 'p & -p'
where p itself is a declarative sentence.  What you probably
mean to say is that statements in science and statements in the
Bible are inconsistent (=unable to be true at the same time).  I
would still like to see some examples, if you have time.

>Scientists are often not taken seriously even within other scientific fields,
>let alone in general debate.

This is a very odd comment.  I assume you mean that scientists
are often made part of a fallacious appeal to authority.

----------------------------------------------------------------
>> Much information appears in the Ecclesiastical History of
>> Eusebius (about 320 C.E.).  It is worthless as historical
>> material because of the deliberate falsification of the wily
>> Eusebius who is generally acknowledged as 'the first thoroughly
>> dishonest historian of antiquity.' It is Eusebius who is
>> generally given the title of authorship for this material.
>>
>>         As a philosopher, I am not competent to judge Eusebius's
>>         work, but it clear this is far too harsh.  As I scan the
>>         few history books I have at hand that cover the first and
>>         second century, all cite Eusebius.  The fact of the
>>         matter (if not the FAQ on the matter) is that, far from
>>         considering this work "worthless," historians use
>>         Eusebius as a key source.
>
>Ah, but you fail to say what those historians are studying.  I wouldn't
>expect a Holocaust Revisionist to write an accurate history of World War II,
>but I see no reason why such a person (*) shouldn't write accurately about
>the agricultural revolution.

Well, this is a rather uncharitable reply.  I would think I've
carried myself here and in the past well enough that you know I
don't cite works by fundamentalists or those whose scholarship is
suspect.  The quote deleted in your reply was from _The Oxford
Dictionary of the Christian Church_.  Oxford University Press is
perhaps the most prestigious publisher in the academic world.
I own three history texts that cover the era in question, all by
Oxford Press, and all cite Eusebius.  No revisionists here.

Jeff Koperski
Dept. of Philosophy
Ohio State