Sunday, June 23, 2013

INGX24's AFR

Here. 

I'm always glad to see people of different stripes developing this. Also, Hasker's contributions to the argument are extremely important. Bill and I were fellows together at the Center for Philosophy of Religion at Notre Dame in 1989-1990.

37 comments:

ingx24 said...

:D

John Moore said...

All these discussions of the argument from reason seem to boil down to a statement like this: "If no inference is reliably valid, we cannot have objective knowledge."

My question is, reliable for what?

I'll admit my human mind is unreliable when it comes to knowledge about God's ultimate cosmic reality. On the other hand, when it comes to putting food in my mouth, my mind is very reliable indeed.

Maybe the argument from reason is true as far as it goes but irrelevant for real human beings living in our earthly reality.

ingx24 said...

I don't know how you do it, Vic. Pretty much every comment on my blog post was an objection, and after a while I just got overwhelmed and couldn't come up with a convincing response to any of it. It's actually really stressful and almost terrifying having your entire belief system systematically attacked in such a way that you have no idea what to say or how to respond, and you just feel powerless to defend yourself.

Crude said...

I don't know how you do it, Vic. Pretty much every comment on my blog post was an objection, and after a while I just got overwhelmed and couldn't come up with a convincing response to any of it.

Don't mistake fatigue with poor performance. You've being doing damn good, especially considering you were pretty well ganged up on in the space of what, a single day?

And yep, that's what happens when you take a philosophical position, particularly anything theistic or dualistic. You do a whole lot of defending. (Materialists have to do so as well, but I'd say they typically get a pass in many venues.)

Victor Reppert said...

The people I saw over there, I must say, are mostly the best ones (BDK, De Stefano), as opposed to card-carrying gnu ideologues. (Now there's a redundant phrase if there ever was one.)

ingx24 said...

Yeah, it definitely wasn't as easy as arguing against most of the materialists around here :P

Papalinton said...

You guys really do have yourself on, don't you? No matter the conscious and intentional use of the pejorative, 'card-carrying gnu ideologues', you know as I know that the recalcitrant persistence of our innate proclivity towards belief in unfounded immaterialism-woo, of the type that underpins and perpetuates old-town religion, is not a product of deliberative investigation into its verisimilitude or the nature of its reality. Rather it is an ad hoc rationalization of why we experience this proclivity, attempting to provide an explanation in the absence of knowledge; and even more egregiously, despite mountains of counterevidence. It does not attempt to investigate or establish the causes for why it is that humans have this predilection. The pathology of this inherent compulsion and irrational dependency on belief in immaterial-woo is primarily a product of the psychological and emotional need for cognitive closure. The human mind does not cope well with open-endedness. Period. The human mind is genetically predisposed to rounding out the story, filling in the gaps, even with ideas and thoughts that have little bearing to the proposition under discussion. There are countless documented and researched examples of this form of cognitive 'completion'.

Both BDK and Matt De Stefano have offered some really useful and valuable guidance for anyone interested in rounding out their personal intellectual understanding of contemporary materialism/immaterialism discourse.

Papalinton said...

"Materialists have to do so as well [defend], but I'd say they typically get a pass in many venues."

Materialism gets a pass because it has crossed the evidentiary threshold of confirmation. Immaterialism has yet to reach the low bar of a working hypothesis beyond the limitations of speculative philosophy and theological foible.

ingx24 said...

Translation: "I can't deal with the arguments against materialism so I'm just going to dismiss them by claiming that they're ad-hoc rationalizations of the 'overwhelming evidence' for materialism and against dualism (which I know exists and is overwhelming because otherwise dualism might actually be a serious contender, which I can't allow because otherwise I might have to actually deal with the arguments for it)"

Crude said...

ingx24,

You give him too much credit. He cannot cope with the arguments *for* materialism. If it's more complicated than a bigoted slogan, the man collapses.

Don't sweat him. He's an old man, and he's lonely. People like you scare him.

Papalinton said...

"I can't deal with the arguments against materialism."

Never a truism truer spoke. The trouble is, most people who operate on the principle of reason cannot deal with the arguments against materialism, because such arguments, as their name suggests, are immaterial, vapid, insubstantial.

Materialism by its very nature needs no invisible means of support. IngX24, you ostensibly have two choices; either go down the Crude road to irrelevancy or heed the advice of BDK and De Stefano.

From the pedestrian and institutional tone of your comment it seems you have already carved out for yourself an apologetical and insignificant future. You do so of your own volition and against better judgement. Don't take my word for it. At such a young age, it behooves you to keep an open mind.

ingx24 said...

Materialism by its very nature needs no invisible means of support. IngX24, you ostensibly have two choices; either go down the Crude road to irrelevancy or heed the advice of BDK and De Stefano.

From the pedestrian and institutional tone of your comment it seems you have already carved out for yourself an apologetical and insignificant future. You do so of your own volition and against better judgement. Don't take my word for it. At such a young age, it behooves you to keep an open mind.


Ah, so are the ad hominems about my age going to start now? "Oh, he's only 18, he doesn't know any better. Once he gets older and looks into things more, he'll see that materialism is the truth." BDK pulled the same shit on my blog the other day.

Ilíon said...

ingx24: "Pretty much every comment on my blog post was an objection, ..."

Objections are good ... if they're well-founded. I take it you don't thing the objections you received were well-founded.

Well, dang! Do you deserve to receive well-founded objections? I mean, considering the manner in which you object to any argument showing that "western-style" atheism and materialism each inply the other (for they are not actually two different things, but rather simply two different ways of saying the same thing).

Ilíon said...

"... BDK pulled the same shit on my blog the other day."

Are you a hypocrite?

Well, you you are ... but are you willing to stop being one?

Ilíon said...

VR: "The people I saw over there, I must say, are mostly the best ones (BDK, De Stefano), as opposed to card-carrying gnu ideologues. (Now there's a redundant phrase if there ever was one.)"

Ingx24: "... BDK pulled the same shit on my blog the other day."

Is it really necessary to say more? It shouldn't be ... but I will (for the lurkers, you know).

Mr Reppert -- and the those of the insane posse who simply *must* find me wrong about anything or even everything -- judges BDK or De Stefano to be among "best ones" by reasoning that goes something like this: "He doesn't *constantly behave or "argue" like Papalinton does, thus he's "a good atheist" with whom one may have a civil and rational discussion."

I, on the other hand, judge *everyone*, regardless of which "team" they are on, by whether they consistently reason and argue in accord with the well-known logical/rational strictures, on the one hand, or whether they constantly give themselves permission to "reason" and "argue" irrationally or illogically. Simply put, those whom I constantly observe asserting or "arguing" both 'A' and 'not-A', depending on the need of the moment -- and who will not cease doing it when it's pointed out -- I am not shy about calling out as intellectually dishonest, which is intellectual hypocrisy, which is to be, in a word, a 'fool'.

Ilíon said...

... but, as we know -- for so ingx24 has informed us just the other day -- I am mentally ill ... precisely because I will not excuse any fool (any intellectually dishonest person) his hypocrisy with respect to reason.

ingx24 said...

Well, dang! Do you deserve to receive well-founded objections? I mean, considering the manner in which you object to any argument showing that "western-style" atheism and materialism each inply the other (for they are not actually two different things, but rather simply two different ways of saying the same thing).

No, they are not. It is simply fascinating that you cannot see this. You're just a closed-minded fundamentalist, just like Papalinton: either Christianity is true or vulgar materialism is true, and there's no in between. Most atheists, until the mid-20th century, were not materialists: most of them were either emergent dualists, neutral monists, or idealists. There is nothing inconsistent about denying materialism without accepting theism, and the fact that you refuse to see this speaks volumes.

If you would like, I can describe a scenario to you where atheism is true but materialism is false.

Crude said...

Ilion, let's play a game. Name a single person who you disagree with about God or materialism, and with whom you are able to have a conversation that doesn't involve you constantly denouncing them or name-calling like a shit-flinging monkey who ran out of shit but learned to use a keyboard.

Just one. Let's see 'em.

Dan Gillson said...

Ilíon:

It's not that we must find you wrong about everything, it's that you don't know enough to be right about anything. (Especially when it comes to history.) If ingx24's historical claim about atheism, viz., that prior to the mid-twentieth century, most atheists were emergent dualists, neutral monists, or idealists is correct, then you're claim that Western-style atheism and materialism necessarily imply each other isn't. We would have an actual, historical case in which atheism wasn't coterminous with materialism. (Ingx24 has indeed furnished proof of his claim, viz., the atheism of Bertrand Russell. Of course, that doesn't prove that prior to the 20th c. most atheists weren't materialists, but it does provide proof that atheism and materialism don't necessarily imply each other.) In this particular instance, you're wrong, but you're too vain to admit it. (Ilíon's chief moral failing isn't that he's stupid, it's that he's vain. It offends his vanity too much to be wrong, so he deludes himself into thinking he's always right.)

Matt DeStefano said...

ingx, I've actually lost where this quote originally came from, but Aristotle (purportedly) said "To avoid criticism say nothing, do nothing, be nothing.” You wrote a fantastic piece, and you shouldn't confuse reasoned disagreement with an assessment of your abilities or any sort of attack on you.

Ah, so are the ad hominems about my age going to start now? "Oh, he's only 18, he doesn't know any better. Once he gets older and looks into things more, he'll see that materialism is the truth." BDK pulled the same shit on my blog the other day.

I might have missed the comment, but I don't think that this is what BDK was trying to say. I think he was merely saying that as you become more familiar with the relevant neuroscience, that your views might change. (Of course, it's very possible that you still won't think "materialism" is true.)

Papalinton said...

Ing
Do not confuse my comment about your age with ad hominem. No such intent was implied. If anything, your age is the one saving grace you have at such a formative period in your life.
More pertinent to what you might claim as an ad hominen is the bit about your seemed rusted-on proclivity to the imagined world of immaterialism. And despite centuries of contemplative philosophy, the proposition that some form of ethereal, immaterial existence as a properly basic truth does not comport with even a scintilla of evidence in its favour. Whether it be at the cosmic, macro, micro or at the nano level, no such evidence has ventured beyond ideation. These are simply different orders of observational scale. As some have suggested [and I might add not necessarily restricted to apologetical philosophers], to imagine particles popping in and out of existence at the quantum level is somehow evidence or support for the existence of an immaterial world is little more than an appeal to an unsubstantiated placemarker in the absence of an as yet established methodological explanation.

Ilíon said...

some random liar: "Ilion, let's play a game. Name a single person who you disagree with about God or materialism, and with whom you are able to have a conversation that doesn't involve you constantly denouncing them or name-calling like a shit-flinging monkey who ran out of shit but learned to use a keyboard.

Just one. Let's see 'em.
"

This liar *knows* that everything he has asserted here is false.

And, as "just one example" he knows that *he* is an an example ... and he ought to know that 'ingx24' is yet another example. The fact is, *everyone* is an example of someone I treat respectfully ... until they themselves make it clear that such respect is misplaced. And the quotes fool *knows* this.

Whether the quoted fool explicitly knows that I have always (*) treated 'ingx24' respectfully -- despite the disrespect he periodically tossed my way -- 'ingx24' himself surely does. Never did stop him from being a right ass toward me.

One can Google Victor's blog, one cae *see* me constantly treating 'ingx24' in exactly the way the quotes fool denies I treat anyone ... and one can simultaneously see 'ingx24' acting like an ass toward me.

(*) Until last week, when the disrespect he periodically displays toward me got to the point I will no longer accept.

Crude said...

This liar *knows* that everything he has asserted here is false.

Show me the assertion, you goddamn mental pipsqueak. It was a challenge.

And, as "just one example" he knows that *he* is an an example ... and he ought to know that 'ingx24' is yet another example.

What you do, Ilion, is act quasi-civil towards people so long as they seem close to 100% in agreement with you. When they are not, you immediately - immediately! - descend to snottiness, name-calling, and insults in the name of "correcting" them. And if they react and tell you to go screw yourself, then all hell breaks loose.

The fact is, *everyone* is an example of someone I treat respectfully ... until they themselves make it clear that such respect is misplaced.

And what is your standard for making it clear that such respect is misplaced? Ever think your standard may be bizarre and irrational?

I clearly have a line which, if people cross it, I don't take them seriously anymore, or my response are largely mockery. (Actually, half the time the easiest way to mock these particular people is to take them seriously for 1-2 interactions, getting them to mock themselves. See: Linton.) Merely having a standard is not the problem here.

It's your crazy, absurdly hostile standard that is the problem.

Martin said...

>until they themselves make it clear that such respect is misplaced.

What kind of Christ-like behavior is this supposed to be? Did Christ say "Be nice to people only as long as they deserve it?'

Ilíon said...

Martin,
Let's nevermind your misrepresentation of what I wrote (for, perhaps you don't grasp the context). Instead, let's focus on your misunderstanding of "Christ-like behavior".

You've never actually *read* the Gospels, much less the Bible, have you? For is seems the only 'Christ' you know about is the bowdlerized "gentle Jesus, meek and mild" woman the Victorians invented.

But, in fact, Christ is a man.

Dan Gillson said...

I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop: Christ is a man, therefore ...

Blue Devil Knight said...

I love you too, Ilion, and miss our productive conversations about whether or not I was intellectually honest.

Ilíon said...

BDK: "... and miss our productive conversations about whether or not I was intellectually honest."

One doesn't discuss this sort of thing, for intellectual honestly, like truth, doesn't have gradations: a thing is or is not true; a person is or is not intellectually honest.

Gee whiz, here 'ingx24' is whinning that you're not intellectually honest, even if he's not using that term.

B. Prokop said...

test
(This is from my new laptop - my old one died a painful death)

ingx24 said...

sup bob

B. Prokop said...

I HATE Windows 8 OS !!!!!

ingx24 said...

windows 7 is superior

8 is 4 chumps

Ilíon said...

Prokip,
Perhaps you can still Windows 7 to install on the new laptop.

Try here -- it looks like they are still offering it, for $100

Ilíon said...

... still get ...

Ilíon said...

OK, that's $100 for the 'Home' edition. The 'Pro' edition is $140.

B. Prokop said...

Thanks - I'll look into it. Windows 8 was "free" with the new laptop, and it's proving to be worth every penny I paid for it.

I'm such a Luddite, I still miss Windows 3.0! They should have quit while they were ahead.

Blue Devil Knight said...
This comment has been removed by the author.