# Begging the Question **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 31, 2000, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/begging-the-question/27566 "2000-07-31T17:04:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Spider\_Woman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Spider\_Woman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spider_Woman)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2000, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/begging-the-question/27566/41 "2000-08-01T12:25:59Z")
Libertarian says: “Why would an atheist insist on the validity of his own empirical observations while at the same time asking me to deny my own experience?” Do you mean by this that by holding this belief in ones own empirical observations that an atheist denies you to believe in your own? Isn’t it possible for people to hold different belief systems? Or are you speaking about a specific atheist? I’m probably missing something here. (By the way, I tried to copy and paste that quote and this time my computer wouldn’t allow me to do that. Any ideas as to why, anyone?) ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2000, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/begging-the-question/27566/42 "2000-08-01T12:52:03Z")
**Spider Woman** I’m not sure I understand your question, but in general, some atheists (not all) insist that, for example, reason is valid by virtue of their experience, or empirical observations. Well, I have experienced God, and do so daily. Some atheists will say, “Since I have not experienced what you have, your experience is invalid.” It is a classic double standard. ---
**Author:** ![Spider\_Woman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Spider\_Woman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spider_Woman)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2000, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/begging-the-question/27566/43 "2000-08-01T13:03:27Z")
They would sort of be saying “I think, therefore you don’t.” ---
**Author:** ![gEEk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ed8c4c/32.png) [@gEEk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gEEk)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2000, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/begging-the-question/27566/44 "2000-08-01T13:18:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > That is “proof” that you are willing to accept _on faith_. How do you know there are no purple ravens? > \*\* I **don’t** know there aren’t any purple ravens. Reason tells me that there are likely no purple ravens, but makes no guarantees . If I say, “There can be no purple ravens”, that is a statement with an element of faith. However, it is not neccessary for me to say “There can be no purple ravens”. It is enough to say, “No purple ravens have been shown to exist, therefore, it is likely that there are, in fact, no purple ravens.” As Spiritus said, the lack of certainty is a flaw I can live with. Reason has been shown to be a very valuable tool. In fact it’s greatest strength may be that you don’t have to take it on faith. Evidence for its validity is all around us. What evidence is there for the validity of faith? > [@](#): > > I’m not sure I understand your question, but in general, some atheists (not all) insist that, for example, reason is valid by virtue of their experience, or empirical observations. Well, I have experienced God, and do so daily. Some atheists will say, “Since I have not experienced what you have, your experience is invalid.” It is a classic double standard. Actually, I think a reasonable atheist would say “Since I have not experienced what you have, your experience alone is not a sufficient proof of God’s existence.” Reason requires that the experience be repeatable and universal. If I say “I have seen a purple raven”, then you would be justified in doubting me since you have not seen it yourself. If 100 people say they saw the purple raven, perhaps you begin to accept it, but not without reservation. If I have a picture of a purple raven, then you have some direct evidence. If I have a purple raven on my shoulder, then you have seen the purple raven for yourself. Can you show me God? As you have stated it, the position of the atheist is arrogant and illogical. What does this have to do with reason? If one atheist can be shown to be unreasonable what have you proven? gEEk ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2000, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/begging-the-question/27566/45 "2000-08-01T13:31:28Z")
> [@](#): > > In fact it’s greatest strength may be that you don’t have to take it on faith. Evidence for its validity is all around us. What evidence is there for the validity of faith? The evidence is that you accept the Induction Axiom without proof. > [@](#): > > If one atheist can be shown to be unreasonable what have you proven? Nothing. That was a side issue. The issue of this thread is that faith (in your axioms and your undefined terms) underpins reason, and that validating reason _with_ reason is as tautological as validating the Bible with the Bible. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2000, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/begging-the-question/27566/46 "2000-08-01T13:33:42Z")
Libertarian– > [@](#): > > AHunter3 > > What a brilliant effort! (Not quoted here for any particular reason, I just really like the way that looks) > [@](#): > > Personally, I accept the validity of reason on faith. Of course. One cannot know anything except as a result of constructs that are ultimately built on faith. One has the faith that one’s own felt sensory experiences, including the discovery of predictability and pattern within them, really do bear a relationship to a world that exists outside of our own imaginations. Solipsism is an explanatory theory of the “world” that can only be rejected by faith in the alternative. So we believe that what we think of as “empirical data” and eyewitnessed events and chunks of matter that we can hold in our hand is factually real and present, and we proceed from there. On faith, to be sure. I think not everything believed on faith is by any means equally valid. There are people who believe things not so much because such a belief makes an elegant explication of observed phenomena and meshes neatly and nicely with the rest of what they believe, but because it distracts them from having to consider major failures of portions of their world-view to fit crisply and convincingly (i.e., faith in a belief or belief system that neither explains & makes sense of nor continues to be supported by everyday and historical observations). I am NOT saying that any belief system that cannot be consciously and logically derived from a formal system of observations is invalid, but I am saying that some people cling to a ‘mythological’ belief system because doing so is less emotionally threatening to them than being rigorous in their attempts to reach a genuine understanding of the world. I would say furthermore that in many cases the ‘threat’ involved here is the worry that they will conclude that the world LACKS coherent meaning in some important sense (i.e., better to cling to fairy tales than stare into the hellish face of an arbitrarily existent world that has no emotionally satisfying reason or meaning to it). ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2000, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/begging-the-question/27566/47 "2000-08-01T13:36:36Z")
> [@](#): > > If existence were implied by thinking, then most of the universe does not exist. I think you have Descartes (cogito, ergo sum) confused with Berkeley(esse est percipi). I don’t have time to write as long a post as I would like, but the gist is that Descartes, doubting his senses, looks for what he does know for certain. That he is there to ask the question, proves that he exists, and from that point he proceeds to rebuild his epistemological universe. He uses reason as a heuristic tool to clear doubt of the reality of the evidence of his senses. I think that reason and faith are not in conflict because they answer different questions. Reason is a useful method for testing the validity and logic of statements. Faith deals with things on a subjective scale, like honor, love, and hope. ---
**Author:** ![RM\_Mentock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e274bd/32.png) [@RM\_Mentock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RM_Mentock)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2000, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/begging-the-question/27566/48 "2000-08-01T13:37:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > **Father** > > Thank you for visiting the thread! It is a great honor indeed. > > > [@](#): > > > > Non sequitur? > > If existence were implied by thinking, then most of the universe does not exist. You’ve stood the argument on its head. Descartes, through an elaborate process, arrived at the conclusion “I think, therefore I am.” However, this does _not_ imply that something which does not think does not exist. I think that’s the logical fallacy called _denying the antecedent_. I realize that I am using only logic here, but it’s the best I got. Descartes was one of the first to tackle this problem. That his argument is insufficient is clearly obvious–we’re still debating it, aren’t we? I think he did a pretty good job, though, for a rookie. > [@](#): > > Once again, you accept your axioms and your undefined terms on faith. Axioms, by definition, are _accepted without proof_, which itself is the definition of faith. > > Try, for example, to prove that A is A, or to prove the Induction Axiom: “Any property that belongs to zero, and also to the immediate successor of any natural number to which it belongs, belongs to all natural numbers.” And while you’re at it, define “successor” and “natural number”, two terms that thus far have been left undefined. Don’t get mathematical on me. Mathematics requires _no faith_. Just because you accept the rules of the game and manipulate the axioms and definitions, doesn’t mean that you have to believe in the absolute existence of your conclusions. I’m sure you’re aware of pairs of mathematical systems in which some axioms are directly opposite of each other. It doesn’t take a leap of faith to accept one, and then the other. Can mathematicians exhibit beliefs that require faith? O Lord, yes. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2000, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/begging-the-question/27566/49 "2000-08-01T13:51:38Z")
**AHunter3** Good stuff, there. And more fuel for the assertion that epistemology is just another ethic. After all, we have discussed only knowledge thus far; we haven’t even begun to tackle meaning. **Father** > [@](#): > > Just because you accept the rules of the game and manipulate the axioms and definitions, doesn’t mean that you have to believe in the absolute existence of your conclusions. I’m sure you’re aware of pairs of mathematical systems in which some axioms are directly opposite of each other. It doesn’t take a leap of faith to accept one, and then the other. I wouldn’t presume to contradict you, but all I am saying is that, within whatever arbitrary reference frame, you must indeed believe in three things: the meanings of your undefined terms; the truth of your axioms; and the validity of your implications. In other words, if your conclusion is that parallel lines intersect, then your axiom _must be_ that the plane is not flat. Yes, you may discard flat planes and work with curved ones instead, but that is no different than faith in anything else. Within my journey of faith in God, the axioms are always changing, as I comprehend new things. Until recently, I thought that only theists were “qualified” for eternal life. Then, God told me that He is unknowable by the brain, and that a theist-atheist dichotomy is beside the point. A fundamental axiom then changed, resulting in a fundamental shift in my world view. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2000, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/begging-the-question/27566/50 "2000-08-01T13:53:40Z")
**Father** Forgive me. Obviously, “In other words, if your conclusion is that parallel lines intersect, then your axiom must be that the plane is not flat” should have read, “In other words, if your conclusion is that parallel lines do not intersect, then your axiom must be that the plane is not flat.” ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2000, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/begging-the-question/27566/51 "2000-08-01T13:55:20Z")
**Father** Dammit! You realize how nervous you make me. Actually, the original assertion is the right one. I think. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2000, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/begging-the-question/27566/52 "2000-08-01T13:57:53Z")
> [@](#): > > _The issue of this thread is that faith (in your axioms and your undefined terms) underpins reason, and that validating reason with reason is as tautological as validating the Bible with the Bible._ Tautological it may be, **Lib** , but that’s the nature of definitions, as you like to point out now and again. To say that “reason is a faith-based epistemology” is true, but completely meaningless. _Awareness_ is a series of acts of faith! Belief in the continuance of the universe and its physical laws is the basic act of faith that all living creatures exhibit; it cannot be proven, but it is accepted as a condition of existence. It is a given that _all_ epistemologies are faith based, to the extent that the foundation for all systems of thought is the single article of faith that “this will continue.” What really matters is the yardstick one chooses to validate one’s epistemology. Some may choose “beauty”, some “tradition”, some may even choose “whimsy”. The more pragmatically inclined choose _utility_ as the yardstick, and thus _reason_ as the foundation for their beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2000, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/begging-the-question/27566/53 "2000-08-01T14:42:21Z")
**Xeno** Beautiful analysis! Thank you! There are equally utilitarian epistemologies besides reason. Utility depends, I suppose, on what end we seek. A scriptural epistemology can serve the purpose of political domination, for example. This very interesting tie between knowledge and ethics might also have another, namely, reaity. What is real? What we perceive? If so, how do we know we are not living in The Matrix? In the end, it seems that we choose both our knowledge and our reality based on our ethic. Good stuff, Xeno, really good. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2000, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/begging-the-question/27566/54 "2000-08-01T14:57:13Z")
> [@](#): > > _Utility depends, I suppose, on what end we seek._ Ah, you’re correct, of course. I shouldn’t assume the goal is neccessarily “understanding” in all cases. A better pragmatist’s utility yardstick might be: “To what extent does [insert epistemology of choice here] produce consistent, repeatable and falsifiable conclusions?” ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2000, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/begging-the-question/27566/55 "2000-08-01T14:59:01Z")
> [@](#): > > However, as Spiritus points out, reason must be proven by natural processes. Actually, I am afraid that I pointed out no such thing. What I was trying to explicate is my position that reason cannot be demonstrated as valid. Faith, also, cannot be demonstrated as valid. Nor can any other epistemology. The set of valid epistemologies is empty until the first member is set axiomatically. Therefore, no epistemology can be said to be valid in an absolute sense. At best, we can search for the set of epistemologies which most reliably maps our phenomenological experiences. Many great minds have spent an inordinate amount of time examining epistemologies without (IMO, of course) understanding the basic nature of the problem which they addressed. **However** , the above is _not_ equivalent to saying that “the epistemology of reason must be accepted on faith”. I, for instance, have no need for reason to be **valid** (in the rigorous meaning – which is, of course, defined within the context of reason). I trust reason because it has proven reliable within my phenomenological existence. That trust is strong; it is not absolute. I have no guarantee that reason is “valid”, nor do I have a guarantee that it will continue to be useful. I do not need any such guarantee. Which is good, because the Universe will not give me one no matter how much I ask. I could make up my own guarantee. If I did so, I would be accepting it on faith. (please note: “make up my own” refers specificaly to the act of axiomatic acceptance and has no relationship to any external truth value.) BTW, yes Lib, your geometry was right the first time. Where mathematics fails as a model of faith, though, is in the mapping of a mathematical field to the “real” world. Euclidian and spherical geometry have fundamental axioomatic differences, yet it is not necessary to accept one and reject the other in order to e consistent. Neither field pretends to explain the Universe. In fact, no mathematical field necessarily holds any relationship to an external expression. We use mathematics to model reality because it has proven useful for us to do so. That fact is not related to the mathematics itself. ---
**Author:** ![Morgan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/0ea827/32.png) [@Morgan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgan)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2000, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/begging-the-question/27566/56 "2000-08-01T14:59:52Z")
> [@](#): > > In this context, reason is an epistemology of extrapolation from axioms or experiences accepted on faith, either from the general to the specific (deduction) or from the specific to the general (induction). What a ridiculous definition. I was dead-on-right with my first post. The problem is that you are trying to create your own language. Reason has never been defined as an epistemology, but instead as a tool. Well, here is my answer: Potato reign speaker into the mouse. In your tradition, I won’t bother to define any of the words until later. I would also like to say that without the above definition, the implication is that the religious have rejected reson. That is just plain insulting. Society (including the religious and the non-religious) have a word for people who do not believe in cause and effect–they are insane. People who believe that “Reason is a valid epistemology because ice cream has no bones” are not considered in good mental health by anyone. ---
**Author:** ![RM\_Mentock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e274bd/32.png) [@RM\_Mentock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RM_Mentock)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2000, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/begging-the-question/27566/57 "2000-08-01T15:14:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > **I wouldn’t presume to contradict you, but all I am saying is that, within whatever arbitrary reference frame, you must indeed believe in three things: the meanings of your undefined terms; the truth of your axioms; and the validity of your implications.** Spiritus and Xeno have already zoomed in on the essential distinction: it’s not “believe,” it’s “use.” Mathematicians don’t _have to believe_ in anything, they can get away with just using things. That’s the reliance on utility, mentioned elsewhere. Have you read Stephen Jay Gould’s Rocks of Ages yet? It’s about the non-overlap of science and religion. Sorry about your nervousness. (It truly didn’t induce delight, that only offends.) ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2000, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/begging-the-question/27566/58 "2000-08-01T15:30:15Z")
**Morgan** > [@](#): > > Reason has never been defined as an epistemology, but instead as a tool. Conter-example: From [The Ayn Rand Institute](http://www.aynrand.org/objectivism/io.html) [/quote] At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows: ``` 1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality 2. **Epistemology: Reason** 3. Ethics: Self-interest 4. Politics: Capitalism ``` Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, **his only source of knowledge** , his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival. [/quote] Emphases mine. **Spiritus** I’m afraid I have grossly misjudged you. I apologize. **Father** Yes, I do get that point now, thanks. The point remains, however that you believe it is useful based on empiricism, and that is no different than my own faith in God. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2000, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/begging-the-question/27566/59 "2000-08-01T17:22:14Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m afraid I have grossly misjudged you. I apologize. I accept your apology. Thank you for offering it. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2000, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/begging-the-question/27566/60 "2000-08-01T17:27:14Z")
Hey, get a room, you two! 😃 Or should I resurrect the Second Coming thread? 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/begging-the-question/27566.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/begging-the-question/27566.md?page=4)