After reading through some of your links(thanks btw), I think I would call him an evidentialist He claims to go where the evidence leads, and that naturalists/materialists/empiricists are the ones making assumptions and generally being short sighted. He said once that Occam’s razor shows the Bible to be true.
I’ve heard him refer to Mere Christianity a few times. That is not considered a presuppositionalist work is it? I think his general strategy is to show that not believing in god is logically inconsistent–>god exists so you need to choose a religion–>Christianity is the best choice–>the Bible is the inerrant word of God–>young earth creationism/right wing political Christianity. Its like believing that Jonah was swallowed by a fish is too much at first, so he has to inch you there.
Another one of his gems was the Euthyphro dilemma. His co-host posed the question “Is something good because God created it, or did God create it because its good?” He then replied “Neither, he creates from his nature, which is good.?” wtf. Didn’t you just reword option #1?
I need to listen to a few hours of podcasts a day to stay sane at work. I’m getting addicted to his occasional show because I’ve never had so many wtf moments. It’s like I’m living in Bizzaro world.
The problem here is that he allowed DJ to lead him to this point. The proper answer to “Is matter all there is?” is to say “Well, we know matter exists. I haven’t seen evidence that there’s anything else in existence. So until I see evidence, I tentatively accept that matter is probably all there is. The answer to your question is ‘yes.’”
This is actually how we materialists look at it, and it does not presuppose materialism. It presupposes that what we accept should be based on evidence.
I could swear I’ve listened to him before and while he might have some evidentialist evidence, I could swear he was a full on presupper. I’m not sure though, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
If he does say that he goes where the evidence leads, then he’d be an evidentialist.
No, CS Lewis is not considered a presuppositionalist - although he does have an argument from reason which, I think, some presuppositionalists use.
That’s not his, it’s a (now) standard evasion. A couple of things:
What does it mean to say a supernatural entity has a ‘nature’?
How was God’s nature determined?
If God’s nature had been different, it seems to me that morality would be different - so it’s simply luck that murdering people is against God’s nature, right?
Why ought we follow what God’s nature entails?
I am in a similar situation.
I listen to ‘Unbelievable’
The Bible Geek
Skeptiod
And, of course, I go onto Luke’s page and download as many MP3 debates as I can stand.
Let’s examine this. What, in our experience, has a beginning? There are only two that I can think of: subatomic particles, and the universe itself. Now we know that subatomic particles pop into existence without cause, so this disproves your axiom. A question for you - if there are two kinds of things that we know of with beginnings, and one of them we know to be uncaused, why would you think that the other must have a cause? Seems like it would work the other way 'round.
What does that even mean? If something was timeless, it would be impossible for that something to take any action. How could this something for which “action” is an invalid concept, cause anything?
I’d like to dispute the premise of the OP that science began assuming naturalism. If you read many of the very earliest scientific papers, from the 16th and 17th centuries, you will see that God is frequently mentioned as the cause of all. Many of these people considered themselves to be examining the earthly evidence of the miracle of creation and of God’s law. This pretty much totally disappears (at least in the papers printed in the collection I have) by the 18th century, where God is no longer a necessary part of the hypothesis. As time went on, it was discovered that all these things could be explained without supernatural intervention.
I’d say naturalism is not just a premise, but the response to the discovery that the initial supernaturalist premise was not required to explain the world. I wouldn’t say this was falsified, since you can’t falsify supernaturalism, but it was made unnecessary.
You are assuming that the evidence is the key, or the only thing(s) worth noting, while the seeing is arguably just as important. Thus you can’t use the above as a dodge that you have no preexisting bias towards materialism.
I don’t understand your first sentence, but my explanation is NOT a dodge - it’s how I view the situation. If I had a reason to think that there is something non-material, I would be open to it.
I don’t believe this is a correct definition, or if it is then I don’t agree that it should be. I would say that naturalism is declining to accept that non-existent things exist. To put it another way, the latter part of the above definition is true but meaningless because it is axiomatic that nothing exists beyond the natural world because if it exists it is part of the natural world.
I don’t believe non-naturalists actually believe in the distinction they make: if anything they currently considered to be supernatural became something that clearly existed, it would come to be seen by them as natural.
The “supernatural” is a kiddies’ playground for adults, where you tell yourself that reality doesn’t apply so you can indulge your desire to make up silly stories and pretend they are true.
Yes, it is assuming the event, phenomenon, or in your example the card trick, was the result of a naturalistic occurrence, or caused by a naturalistic occurence, to the exclusion of all other non-naturalistic causes, occurrences, or explanations. The fundamental query is whether the assumptions we make are reasonable. Is it reasonable to assume Jon Doe killed person X as opposed to the death angel? Is it reasonable to assume the magician is deceiving us into thinking his/her tricks are “magic” as opposed to using illusions, sleight of hand, and other gimmicks?
Is it reasonable to, by default, assume a naturalistic explanation, account, or cause for some event or phenomenon as opposed to a supernatural one?
I think the answer to these questions is “yes” it is reasonable, but making such an admission does not, by itself, remove the possibility, or render impossible as a matter of fact a supernatural cause or explanation.
Before we allow a supernatural explanation as a possibility, shouldn’t we first find out if that supernatural explanation is possible in the first place?
Precisely. If you a priori put precedence on the evidence, and not what is actually seeing the evidence (i.e. consciousness), than your conclusion is preordained.
Man’s inability to be 100% certain about so few things in life, if anything, renders a lot of things possible. Man’s inability to know, with 100% certainty, the supernatural is non-existent, and the supernatural cannot be the cause for anything, renders the supernatural a possibility.
David Hume spilled a lot of ink on the subject of human knowledge and its limits.
If we went through life thinking of all the possibilities, no matter how slim, before making decisions, we would never progress. There comes a time when you have to put the slimmest of possibilities into the big “Ain’t worth wasting my precious time” pile, and move on. Maybe Santa Claus does have an extra-dimensional base at the North Pole…but I’m still going to call someone mounting an expedition to look for it an idiot, right to their face.
No, this doesn’t make anything possible. It just makes us uncertain whether it was possible or not. It was just as impossible to exceed c in 1650 as in 1950.
Anything man cannot be 100% certain of, which is a lot, if not everything, makes alternatives possible.
As for your speed of light reference, scientists are not 100% certain nothing could exceed the speed of light in 1650, or now in 1950, which means it is possible something can. What scientists will tell you, however, is they are 99.9% there is nothing which can exceed the speed of light, not in 1650, 1950, or at the present. This leaves a 1% chance there is something to exceed the speed of light, i.e. it is possible to exceed the speed a light and there is a 1% chance of it.
Scientists do not deal in absolutes, as you suggest above.
