Presuppositionalism vs. Parsimony

[Willamena]

What fundamentalist axioms must I agree to to believe that 2 and 2 equals 4? What fundamentalist axioms must I agree to to believe in evolution? What fundamentalist axioms must I agree to to know that love is the reason we live?

Truth and identity.

 

[Secret Chief]

UH One new word a day OK?

tldnr

 

[savagewind]

Google says it's not a word. It's not an acronym either. Quite odd. I thought combination has is? is it has or is? Idunno. sooner or later. It is an insult? It would my first. Haha

 

[Penumbra]

Presuppositionalism is a blanket term for a broad spectrum of beliefs that are self-described by their adherents as axiomatic: in the relevant sense here, that belief in the existence of a god is as properly basic as an adoption of logical laws. These sorts of positions immediately call a few questions to my mind -- questions I would like to answer (if I can, or to wrangle with if I might) here: must we all, in fact, presuppose at least something? Is there a difference between some presuppositions and others in terms of epistemic strength and value?

The answer to the first question (must we all presuppose something?) is, without question, and somewhat counter-intuitively -- yes. There are no epistemic foundations that are free of presupposition; and ironically this very fact undermines a few theistic presuppositional epistemologies which claim access to direct divine knowledge of an absolute sort. So what is it that any epistemology must presuppose such that there is no justification possible in principle which could provide a foundation for the belief?

The belief I'm referring to -- which all epistemes presuppose in lieu of primary justification (recursive justification does not count) -- is the belief that our mental and cognitive faculties are capable of (and geared towards) producing true beliefs while avoiding false ones. After all, how can we possibly justify that belief without presupposing it? It's not possible, and so the presuppositionalist is vindicated on at least one minor point: we are all, to some degree, presuppositionalists.

However, what presuppositionalist arguments for the rationality of theistic beliefs often fail to do is to ask the question of whether some presuppositions have more epistemic merit than others in an objective sense. Is there an epistemic difference between presupposing our cogntive faculties are efficacious -- as opposed to presupposing the existence of a deity? Yes, and I'd like to point to the principle of parsimony here, an epistemic incarnation of Occam's Razor.

All I must do is point out that everyone must presuppose their mental faculties are reliable in order to have an episteme at all in the first place -- we are transcendentally bound to that presupposition: we can't even disagree with it without at the same time calling upon it! It is therefore safe from criticism from even the most worried skeptic.

However, the same can't be said for theistic presuppositions: there is no transcendental force urging its acceptance to us; we are quite free to doubt theistic presuppositions in our epistemic methods without invoking an immediate, explicit contradiction. Thus there is an objective and fundamental difference between the two presuppositions: one is universal, transcendental, and so required of us; the other is subjectively adopted, open to skepticism without contradiction, and in comparison to the other -- extraneous.

There I call attention to a sort of epistemic principle of parsimony: why carry more presuppositions than are absolutely necessary, particularly when there exist alternative epistemologies with fewer presuppositions?

Anyone?

I think this is all true as it is stated.

I would question the use of the word 'carry' as it relates to presuppositions, though. How do you define the word in this context? Does it mean to hold those presuppositions as certainly true, or does it mean to merely entertain them as possibly true? I think the definition of this term has a large impact on the conclusion of this argument.

I agree with Aristotle's statement that the mark of an educated mind is the ability to entertain a thought without accepting it. In this case, the thoughts are presuppositions.

In other words, if some says "If A, therefore B", and another person says, "If X, therefore Y", and we don't accept A or X as valid axioms, then we likely do not accept B or Y. However, we may agree that B follows from A and Y follows from X, if A and X are indeed true in some world.

Strict avoidance of too many presuppositions can result in stagnation of advancements in knowledge. It seems important to make jumps of logic, treating statements as true, in order to follow the paths and see where they lead. That doesn't mean the worlds described by that series of logical steps would be held as true; it merely means that this becomes yet one more possible world that we can imagine and describe. It becomes one more source of inspiration in our armory of how things could be, how things might be, in order to propose possible solutions to current or future problems.

I do agree that certain axioms are more fundamental or valuable. For example, without the law of identity or the law of non-contradiction, it's not really possible to use language in any intelligent manner. Every argument presupposes these laws as true.

An example of yours where mental faculties are assumed to be reliable is an assumption we must accept on some basic level but not necessarily in its entirety, because it's not clearly defined. Reliable to what extent? I could assert that my mental abilities to follow logic are reliable, but I could also assert that there appear to be some truths that cannot be converted into knowledge without direct experience. Logic alone is insufficient in such cases. For example, if a person is born blind and has never seen color, there is no logical argument to describe what Red looks like. We could use logic to explain its existence as a frequency band of electromagnetic radiation that is perceived by the eye, but we cannot use logic to explain how it subjectively appears. There is an as-of-yet insurmountable barrier between logic and it's ability to know that without direct experience.

It seems prudent to weigh arguments that rely on fewer or more fundamental presuppositions more heavily than ones that rely on a greater number of presuppositions or more abstract presuppositions that are not immediately able to be demonstrated as false or shown to render a discussion impossible, without necessarily asserting that those arguments with fewer and more fundamental presuppositions are certainly true. They're just easier to defend, and more humble, because generally a smaller subset of Truth is claimed to be converted into knowledge in comparison to worldviews that require more numerous and complex presuppositions.

In short, it's a useful skill to be able to entertain a multitude of possible worlds, and this requires making use of various presuppositions. The most important thing in this context is not the number or type of presuppositions for any given argument, but instead it's the ability of the person to identify and understand which presuppositions they're relying on in their own arguments or in the arguments of others.

 

[Prophet]

Truth and identity.

How are these fundamentalist axioms?

 

[Penumbra]

How are these fundamentalist axioms?

I don't know what you mean by 'fundamentalist axiom' as you're the only person using that phrase in this thread and you are using the word 'fundamental' differently than everybody else in here.

But the law of identity is an axiom that is essential to practically every argument and all of your examples and posts. So is the law of non-contradiction.

 

[Willamena]

How are these fundamentalist axioms?

They are fundamentally irreducable, hence fundamentally is how we use them.

When someone declares something as true, they have eliminated the distinction between belief and a fact. Similarly, when someone declares something "as it is" or "for what it is," they have eliminated the distinction between belief and a fact. They are upholding the world strictly in its appearance, and professing it. That is fundamentalism.

We are each The Fundamentalist in some manner.

 

[Prophet]

They are fundamentally irreducable, hence fundamentally is how we use them.

When someone declares something as true, they have eliminated the distinction between belief and a fact. Similarly, when someone declares something "as it is" or "for what it is," they have eliminated the distinction between belief and a fact. They are upholding the world strictly in its appearance, and professing it. That is fundamentalism.

We are each The Fundamentalist in some manner.

You can correctly believe in a fact, while hiding from yourself the understanding that would give the knowledge power. Fundamentalism relies upon a mixed up psychological state of insanity where knowledge precedes understanding.

IOW, you can ignorantly say 2 and 2 equals 4, you can ignorantly say evolution is true, and you can ignorantly claim that love is the answer, but until you understand how we can come to these conclusions, the knowledge gained is useless.

Fundamentalists believe truth is irreducible because they avoid understanding in favor of associating with people who agree with them. About this Nietzsche wrote, "In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule." For this reason, fundamentalism has a history of silencing people who bring differing perspectives.

 

[Orias]

I highlighted the part that identifies you as a fundamentalist.

How does that identify me as a fundamentalist?

Without thought, you posit things you can't demonstrate to be true in an attempt to debunk me.

Like what?

What fundamentalist axioms must I agree to to believe that 2 and 2 equals 4?

Arithmetic.

What fundamentalist axioms must I agree to to believe in evolution?

The theory of evolution.

What fundamentalist axioms must I agree to to know that love is the reason we live?

Were those supposed to be rhetorical questions?

I just love answering those :bat:

But in all sincerity I am convinced you have no idea that you know what you're talking about.

There is a fundamental understanding for EVERYTHING. It was even stated in the OP

 

[Falvlun]

To what degree does your principle of parsimony function as one of the very presuppositions you talk about avoiding? Do we fundamentally presuppose that such an appeal to simplicity is necessarily better in arriving at truth in any specific circumstance via our presupposed competent faculties?

I thought this was a good point. Doesn't the worldview espoused in the OP require the presupposition that Occam's Razor is fundamentally true?

Unfortunately, I think the whole thing is way too subjective to come to an objective conclusion. Assignation of values such as "more basic" are inherently subjective.

 

[Prophet]

Regarding your statement:

There is a fundamental understanding for all belief

You ask:

How does that identify me as a fundamentalist?

Regarding my statement: "Without thought, you posit things you can't demonstrate to be true in an attempt to debunk me", you ask:

Like what?

How do I demonstrate your fundamentalism? Very easily. Like all fundamentalist foundations, the statement "There is a fundamental understanding for all belief" is unprovable. You have no evidence or support for this. All you have here is a prejudice based upon a long list of beliefs from various sources which you believe are fundamentalist.

I might go so far to agree with you that MOST beliefs are fundamentalist (depending on the list we're going by). However, that is not support for "ALL beliefs are fundamentalist."

Regarding my question, "What fundamentalist axioms must I agree to to believe that 2 and 2 equals 4?", you replied:

Arithmetic.

I may agree if I thought you were a calculator. I actually understand and am aware of how arithmetic works.

Regarding my question, "What fundamentalist axioms must I agree to to believe in evolution?", you replied:

The theory of evolution.

I may agree if I thought you were an encyclopedia. I actually understand and am aware of how the theory evolution works.

Were those supposed to be rhetorical questions?

I just love answering those

But in all sincerity I am convinced you have no idea that you know what you're talking about.

There is a fundamental understanding for EVERYTHING. It was even stated in the OP

To a rational thinker, they are rhetorical. You seem to be gloating that you have answers for my rhetorical questions, while making a show of your ignorance by positing non sequitur instead of actual answers. You place yourself in a position of superiority over me in your mind by virtue of your ignorance. How could I ever hope to debate someone like you in a rational manner?

I find your continued reiterations of there being fundamentalism at the core of all belief to defend itself akin to my fundamentalist Christian upbringing which used the Bible to defend itself.

I am highly unimpressed that "it was even stated in the OP" as I disagree with Meow Mix and have reasons for doing so. Meow Mix has yet to reply. You have no support, so you take the traditional fundamentalist path of referencing someone who you agree with as if they are infallible. Do you have any idea how weak this looks in a debate?

Boiled down, just because all of YOUR beliefs are fundamentalist, it doesn't mean that everyone else's have to be as well.

I have doubts about continued interaction with you.

 

[Willamena]

You can correctly believe in a fact, while hiding from yourself the understanding that would give the knowledge power. Fundamentalism relies upon a mixed up psychological state of insanity where knowledge precedes understanding.

IOW, you can ignorantly say 2 and 2 equals 4, you can ignorantly say evolution is true, and you can ignorantly claim that love is the answer, but until you understand how we can come to these conclusions, the knowledge gained is useless.

Fundamentalists believe truth is irreducible because they avoid understanding in favor of associating with people who agree with them. About this Nietzsche wrote, "In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule." For this reason, fundamentalism has a history of silencing people who bring differing perspectives.

Okay, but you are not describing fundamentalism as I know it, but stupidity.

 

[Prophet]

Okay, but you are not describing fundamentalism as I know it, but stupidity.

I am not talking about a lack of capacity implicit in stupidity, but, rather, I am speaking of a willful refusal to use one's capacity to understand.

 

[Orias]

How do I demonstrate your fundamentalism? Very easily. Like all fundamentalist foundations, the statement "There is a fundamental understanding for all belief" is unprovable. You have no evidence or support for this. All you have here is a prejudice based upon a long list of beliefs from various sources which you believe are fundamentalist.

The statement isn't unprovable, because the statement in itself exhibits understanding.

For all concepts there is a foundation. Is that so hard to understand?

I might go so far to agree with you that MOST beliefs are fundamentalist (depending on the list we're going by). However, that is not support for "ALL beliefs are fundamentalist."

How are beliefs fundamentalist?

I thought people were fundamentalist.

I may agree if I thought you were a calculator. I actually understand and am aware of how arithmetic works.

I'm sure, do you understand how these devices are made?

I may agree if I thought you were an encyclopedia. I actually understand and am aware of how the theory evolution works.

Ok? I never said you didn't.

To a rational thinker, they are rhetorical.

But answerable nonetheless.

You seem to be gloating that you have answers for my rhetorical questions, while making a show of your ignorance by positing non sequitur instead of actual answers.

This is nonsense, had your posture been one of logical instance in the first place then maybe you would understand the words before your eyes. But you deceive yourself with ego play, silly

You place yourself in a position of superiority over me in your mind by virtue of your ignorance.

You are the one doing the placing, thank you very much.

How could I ever hope to debate someone like you in a rational manner?

By saying something rational. Notice how you haven't done anything to make your position clear? Its probably because you misread the entire event and meaning behind the statement "There is a fundamental understanding behind every belief". It has nothing to do with fundamentalists, but learning how to walk before you run.

I find your continued reiterations of there being fundamentalism at the core of all belief to defend itself akin to my fundamentalist Christian upbringing which used the Bible to defend itself.

You are very flattering, I would indeed fight to the death to defend what I believe in.

I am highly unimpressed that "it was even stated in the OP" as I disagree with Meow Mix and have reasons for doing so. Meow Mix has yet to reply. You have no support, so you take the traditional fundamentalist path of referencing someone who you agree with as if they are infallible.

Try rereading the OP then come back. It helps to understand the topic before making ill regarded statements. I doubt you even understand what position she is up taking and the entire meaning of the thread.

I can explain it if you want me to.

Do you have any idea how weak this looks in a debate?

You think I look weak in this debate? :biglaugh:

Boiled down, just because all of YOUR beliefs are fundamentalist, it doesn't mean that everyone else's have to be as well.

No but it does mean that everyone has a fundamental understanding for everything they believe in.

I have doubts about continued interaction with you.

That doesn't bother me, you're not in tune with my fork anyways.

 

[Willamena]

I am not talking about a lack of capacity implicit in stupidity, but, rather, I am speaking of a willful refusal to use one's capacity to understand.

'Stupidity' is adequate for both, in my opinion.

Fundamentalism basically is a strict adherence to the letter--truth and its cohort identity factor into that. For instance, if you were to stick strictly to the first as the interpretation of 'stupidity' and not allow for a bit of open-mindedness, that might be fundamentalist'.

 

[Orias]

'Stupidity' is adequate for both, in my opinion.

Fundamentalism basically is a strict adherence to the letter--truth and its cohort identity factor into that. For instance, if you were to stick strictly to the first as the interpretation of 'stupidity' and not allow for a bit of open-mindedness, that might be fundamentalist'.

Another instance that might make room for a hypocritical "fundamentalist" is the idea that their understanding of the usage and basics of their own personal belief allows them to act as if their nature was as inconsistent with that of the basic principals that EVERYONE goes through while the process of "self initiation" is underway.

Or basically, everyone learns to walk before they run! "Fundamentalist" :biglaugh:

 

[Orias]

Prophet heres the problem with your argument, I'll list some examples.

It seems like you think certain concepts/ideas/things have no bases, or basic fundamentals or understandings. Which is simply untrue, if you've ever taken a martial arts class, or wrestling class, or actually used arithmetic to figure out a real life problem, or gone to school you would see that. There are basic principals that are necessary to our understanding of how they work.

This is why you make no sense, because you seem to be saying that fundamentals are fundamentalists and are terrorists.