From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism.moderated
Subject: RE: FAQ, 1/2
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 15:39:17 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

Jeffrey D Koperski <jkopersk@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> writes:
> mathew:
> >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.

I think you've forgotten the context.  We're talking about convincing
atheists that God exists.  But let's go back to science for a moment...

If someone wants to convince me of, say, an interesting result concerning
quantum mechanics, and if that result seems plausible given my existing
knowledge, then referring me to one or more authorities on QM who have quoted
the result will be quite adequate to convince me.

On the other hand, if someone wants to convince me that you can build a
perpetual motion machine using a wheel and some ball-bearings, no amount of
testimony from experts in any field is going to convince me, I'm afraid. 
I'll want to see one working.

In other words, my scepticism about a given claim is determined by my
existing knowledge and observations.  Only the most incredible claims need be
tested thoroughly; many can indeed be taken on authority.

So to go back to religion, I'm afraid that the existence of God is an
incredible claim as far as I'm concerned.  Therefore in this case I need
first class direct evidence.
  
>                                  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.

I disagree.  Not too long ago the majority of scientists and philosophers
believed in the theory of spontaneous generation; that doesn't mean all
competing theories should have been discarded.  Your argument is perilously
close to being another case of "fifty million lemmings can't be wrong" --
even if they *are* highly educated lemmings.

> >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.  Fo
> >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.  

I picked that definition of rational straight out of the dictionary I keep on
my desk.  If you want to use some unusual specialized meaning of the word,
please do us a favour and define it before use.

> 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.

No, deductions are rational by definition.  Deduction refers to a process of
reasoned inference, and hence deduction is always rational.  Or are you also
using an unusual technical definition of "deduction"?

>                                               Rational 
> does not mean that a given reasoning process was used.

No, but it means that *some* 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.

I don't think that that belief is non-inferential at all.  I think you
inferred the existence of a coffee mug on your desk by a process of analysis;
you deduced the existence of the mug from the sensory data your brain
received.  You didn't just directly experience the presence of the mug and
hence know that it was there.  Unless you're an Objectivist, of course, in
which case we may as well give up now.

>              Perhaps the readers of this board are of a higher 
> caliber!

Large bore?

> >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.

No, I meant exactly what I said.  For example, many AI researchers don't take
Searle seriously.  Geologists laugh at Creationists who are competant
scientists in other fields.

> 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.

Yes, but what do they cite his writings as evidence for?


mathew