Saturday, September 22, 2007

Bat Wing and Eye of Newt Fallacy

Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the cauldron boil & bake;
Eye of newt and toe of frog,
Wool of bat and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork and blind-worm's sting
Lizard's leg & howlet's wing,
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell broth boil and bubble.

Macbeth Act IV, Scene 1

The crone throws the wing of a bat and the eye of a newt into the cauldron, mixes it up, and voilà, you have the emergence of some mystical and immaterial "protection" or "love" or "safe trip" or "powerful trouble" spell or charm.

Likewise, take the physicalist. That crone, Mammy Nature, mixes a few billions neurons, synapses, and some firing c-fibers, into that cauldron called your noggin, and voilà, you have the emergence of some mystical and immaterial mind with beliefs and intentionality and thoughts.

When appeals to the "mustbebraindidit" argument are made, I'm going to point out that this has a name: The bat wing and eye of newt fallacy.

25 comments:

  1. it must be that "Goddidit".

    ReplyDelete
  2. good comeback slick.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yeah, its kind of funny how that comeback is equally lame no matter which psycho is saying it.

    How about "I don't know, and I don't presume to answer things that I don't know." ?

    That's tough for our young calvinist friends to say, even if its honest.

    ReplyDelete
  4. At certain levels of explanation, that answer is fine, and true.

    What about the supposed theory of everything? What explains that theory? It is supposed to explain everything.

    And, there's a distinction between primary and seconday causes, and explanations.

    And, "mustbebraindidit" is a bit different of an appeal than "godditit" appeals, don't you think? To even treat them as the same presupposes that all answers must be scientific answers.

    But, when we don't know, the Calvinists that I know have no problem admitting it. In fact, mystery is a traditional element in reformed dogmatics. Indeed, this is why Bavinck begins his Doctrine of God this way.

    So, take all your straw and stuff it somewhere else.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Paul, you're basing your beliefs on a book, penned by man. You don't KNOW that this is "God's word," so everything you believe that is based it on it could be the simple scribblings of ignorant mystics.

    You have faith that it is God's word. You have lots of cute little theories that men have come up with over the years, loosely based on the words in a book.

    You don't know.

    Hopefully someday we'll all know if you're right or not.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Goodkind,

    Welcome back, it's good to see you here again.

    Anyway, haven't we discussed this before? First, you never define what you mean by the word "to know," and what conditions must be met to give someone the honorific title, "he knows that p."

    Secondly, is your "could be" a *logical* or an *epistemic* could be. If the latter, I don't think so. If the former, so what?

    Third, why do you think we can't gain knowledge by testimony? God has testified to me, in his word, that it is his word. And if the testifier knows his claims, then so does the one who believes his claims based on his say-so. Surely if God exists then he is omniscient. And so he would know his claims.

    Now, you can say that he doesn't exist, but that needs to be argued for. Or, you can say that I don't "know" that he exists. But, of course the latter simply begs the question against what I just said.

    Lastly, as one who accepts the conjunction of evolution and naturalism, you have a defeater for all your beliefs because of the low or inscrutable probability that your cognitive faculties function reliably given the above conjunction. Thus you have no reason to believe what you've said here.

    Anyway, thanks for stopping by again.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You're a riot, Paul! You say above:

    "God has testified to me, in his word, that it is his word. And if the testifier knows his claims, then so does the one who believes his claims based on his say-so. Surely if God exists then he is omniscient. And so he would know his claims."

    "My" God has testified to me that you're deluded, and that your book isn't the right one. I believe the testimony of my God, because he knows everything, and knows you're deluded. Sorry to have to break this to you.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wow, what a bunch of loaded comments Paul makes!

    1. God has testified to me, in his word, that it is his word.

    Says who? Oh, you say it. And a book.

    2. And if the testifier knows his claims, then so does the one who believes his claims based on his say-so.

    We don't know that there is a 'testifier,' let alone that he/she knows what they're talking about. And you 'believing' those claims isn't 'knowing.'

    3. Surely if God exists then he is omniscient.

    Says who? Oh yeah, you, and a book. Your idea of God is only one of hundreds of God ideas. Not interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous,

    I wasn't asked to offer *arguments* and *proof* for why I believe *my God* is the *only* God there is.

    I was asked how *I* knew. Knowing isn't synonymous with *proof* and *argument.* There's properly basic knowledge, tacit knowledge etc.

    Second, *if* my God exists, then my claim was true. So, here, like other places, the de jure is not separate from the de facto. The only way one could have a problem with my answer is if they believed that my God doesn't exist. But I don't hold that belief. So, for me, the answer answered Goodkind's question.

    Third, I don't know anything about "your God." Maybe he's "my God" too? Maybe he's Muhammad's god? Maybe he's the Flying Spaghetti Monster? You don't tell us. However, we've blogged on the above numerous times here.

    I certainly never said that knowledge by testimony can stand in the face of undefeated defeaters, though it does carry strong initial warrant. I think the last two god-beliefs have serious undefeated defeaters.

    So, in your case, that answer is fine as far as it goes, but then I'd seek to needle you about your god (even though we know you're lying and are just trying to counter my argument with a position you don't even believe - kind of like countering the claim that mom bought the tricycle with the claim that Santa did; they both account for how your tricycle got there). Testimony isn't always sufficient.

    In my case, I read your books, I debate your atheologians, I read your articles, I have long conversations with atheistic friends, etc. I'm not aware of any defeaters to my faith. Thus my answer was perfectly fine. I was asked how I knew, and my answer answered one of the ways I know.

    Since I wasn't asked to offer anything more than how I could "know," then your comeback is actually the cause for riot. It's actually rather quite sad to see the intellectual state most atheists are in these days. They just can't keep up with contemporary discussions, and their old arguments weren't ever that good to begin with.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Wizzy,

    1. God.

    2. I take it on the testimony of another, I have found no reason not to trust him from the get go. Maybe you have a problem, but then again, the question wasn't "how can Wizzy know there is a God," it is "how does Paul know." So, if you have some defeaters for my Christian beliefs, other than mocking and ridiculing them, I'm all ears. Besides that, I answered how I know. That *you* don't know (in a self-cnscious sense) that there is a God is *another* question. Stick on topic.

    3. yeah, a being who can't lie told me that about himself.

    So, you've not told us how *I* can't know.

    And, you, like your buddy above, confuse proof and argument with knowledge. Learn the distinction before you come back. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  11. God told me that the Bible is a big deception of the devil, and that all Christians are misinformed, especially Calvinists.

    Since God is all-knowing (He told me so!) I believe him.

    Sorry, Paul, and company.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous,

    So, you weren't serious in the first place. You just came here to play games. Sorry, not interested. If you can't deal with the way the conversation has progressed, don't bother posting anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Paul, I reject Plantinga's silly argument about "naturalsm&evolution" together have a low probablity, etc, based on his ridiculous example that a guy could run away from a tiger because he thinks that's the way to pet the animal. That's just outright silly.

    You say that you know the Bible is the word of God because "God" himself is testifying in it, but then the same goes for the Quran and Kitab al Aqdas and as well as Bhagavad Gita.

    Thirdly, we all know what knowledge is, that is justified true belief, and if you admit that there areproblems in definings the terms of that definition, and we need to posit a God, then I will say that let's define a hypothetical God, fo instance to say that a belief is true when it corresponds to what God WOULD know. Let's talk of ethics as what God WOULD say to be right. We don't need a real God to solve our philosophical problems, a hypothetical God will do.

    ReplyDelete
  14. IN my above post, I want to correct where I said "admit" I meant "insist".

    I also want to supplement to the PLantingas argument bit: animals FEAR predators, beliefs simply don't come to it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Mike: ...and we need to posit a God, then I will say that let's define a hypothetical God, fo instance to say that a belief is true when it corresponds to what God WOULD know. Let's talk of ethics as what God WOULD say to be right. We don't need a real God to solve our philosophical problems, a hypothetical God will do.

    Vytautas: A hypothetical God cannot not speak. Only the real God can reveal what is right and what he wants us to know. A hypothetical God would only correspond with what you think is right and what is knowledge. So you have have an idea of what is right and what is knowledge. Paul/Plantaga gave a defeter, the example might be silly, but the principle is the same. Basically in a brain developed by evolution would give beliefs that allow you to servive/reproduce, but you say we can have the concept of a hypothetical God that would give us truth or good ethics. But your conception of God occurs in a brain that only favors beliefs that help you servive and reproduce, not help get to the truth of things. These two things serviving/reproducing and truth/knowledge are not the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Mike:

    1) I don't care if "you reject" Plantinga's argument. And, your stated reason betrays your ignorance about the state of the debate. It has moved far beyond your little objection. Try to read the literature rather than googling some atheist discussion boards and hearing the teenager's problems with the argument.

    2) Your second claim was addressed above. read the thread, otherwise you look like a troll trying to press his personal agenda. And, your statement betrays your ignorance of comparative religion. the same kind of appeal to testimony could not be made for the Vedas.

    Moreover, I don't see how your argument follows. It looks like a non sequitur. Would you care to substantiate the if/then you made? Lastly, no one asked me to debunk other religions, to offer proofs and arguments. All anyone asked was "how do I know." if my worldview is true, then my answer worked just fine. That you don't *believe* that my worldview is true constitutes a *different* question that "how do you know." Something like, "how can I [an atheist] know that Christianity is true?" See the difference? And if *that* is the question, then we could proceed differently. Your comeback strikes me as similar to this:

    U: How do you know that your wife had eggs for breakfast.

    Me: Because she told me.

    U: Well, my wife told me something different, so there goes your argument.

    Perhaps you could throw some defeaters in there. Like, "Well, my wife said your wife didn't, and she video taped your wife's entire morning. Your wife didn't eat anything because she is trying to save her appetite for later when she takes you out to dinner for your birthday."

    That might constitute a defeater for my belief. However, I have seen nothing like that presented here. Until I have reason to believe otherwise, why should I doubt the word of my wife (or God)? Are you seriously suggesting this argument:

    A: People cannot know any proposition P based on the testimony of testifier* if *other* testifiees have other testifiers** who have testified some other proposition P1 inconsistent with P.

    ?

    This seems odd. Surely you take many so-called scientific "truths" on the testimony of scientists, say, about the quantum physics. But, could I say that you didn't know these claims because I found other scientists who gave conflicting interpretations of the data?

    That's rather silly, isn't it?

    Or, take my testimony to my son. When he was 2 years old I was telling him that Santa Clause wasn't real (if you've always believed this, sorry to burst your bubble!). Did my son therefore know that Santa was not real? It would appear so, especially if philosophers of testimony are correct in assigning knowledge to testifiees whose testifiers know what they have testified. Knowledge is transitive in these cases.

    Now, say that little Johnny and Susie's parents tell them that Santa *is* real. According to your argument expressed in (A), my son therefore *cannot* know that Santa isn't real. Based on these criteria, children cannot know *anything* (or, 99% of that which that which they believe, e.g., the pet in the yard is a dog, cars will kill you if they hit you, that man is daddy, etc.,). Thus I take it that (1) has been pretty much put to bed. Goodnight.


    3) That is not my definition of knowledge; and, "justification" is subject to much debate by contemporary epistemologists. So, I don’t even know what you mean. Your comments betray an ignorance of the contemporary landscape.

    I never said anything about positing a hypothetical God. Drop the paranoia and the attempts to be "ahead of the game" by anticipating rejoinders.

    I simply asked how 'knowledge' is being defined, and then I would see how that applies to myself.

    WRT JTB, I don't see how I haven't "done my epistemic duty." How am I not "justified?" The answer to this question sparks the whole debate.

    All in all Mike, I'd say that you should take the simplistic responses back to Christianteens.net and hammer them with your "arguments." I frankly don't have the time to deal with this level of debate.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Paul Manata,

    Thank you for your "kind" response.

    Perhaps you misunderstood me about the hypothetical God thing. I am not claiming that this is what you are suggesting. I am saying that we can resolve the problems of philosophy just as effectively with a hypothetical God. We don't need a real God, yet alone Yahweh of Jewish/Christian scriptures.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Mike,

    I'm sure Plantinga (and my argument, since I used it) appreciated his argument being called "silly" and "ridiculous." Don't get all self-righteous now.

    Anyway, I didn't say much about your "hypothetical God" rejoinder. Though I could respond to it I won't since it doesn't counter anything I brought up. It was based on where you thought I might be going with my argument.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Wytautas,

    What do presuppers say that we need God for? We need him to supplement our definitions for stuff. For instance "truth" should be, they say, correspondence to what God knows. We don't need God to tell us what truth is, we just need a hypothetical God so we can define "truth" and "right" etc. We don't need a real God.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Mike said:
    ---
    What do presuppers say that we need God for?
    ---

    Ugh. This question is so wrongly framed.

    Mike said:
    ---
    We need him to supplement our definitions for stuff.
    ---

    You're sliding downhill fast, Mike.

    Name a Presuppositionalist who says, "We need God to supplement our definitions for stuff."

    That we cannot know anything apart from God is not the same thing as saying that the only reason God exists is that we may know "stuff."

    Further, you state:
    ---
    For instance "truth" should be, they say, correspondence to what God knows. We don't need God to tell us what truth is, we just need a hypothetical God so we can define "truth" and "right" etc. We don't need a real God.
    ---

    In other words, a non-existent nothing "knows" something which we can correspond "truth" to. Yeah, makes a lot of sense there.

    Tell me how a fictional God can have any thoughts at all. It can't. Therefore, even your mischaracterization of Presuppositionalism doesn't fall prey to the inane reasoning you have brought forth here. In other words, you are saying:

    If p then q.
    ~p.
    Therefore, q is still justified.

    In the words of your generation: n00b.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Peter Pike,

    What presuppoers say is that the problems of philosophy cannot be solved without positing a God. But I say that what we need is just what God WOULD have in mind. For instance the argument from morality says that it is not easy to define morality without referring to Gods. Okay then, let's just say what is right is what God WOULD say is right. There doesn't need to be a real God, we just need the IDEA of God to define stuff, and move on. We are seeking to solve our philosophical problems in the end.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Mike,

    "For instance the argument from morality says that it is not easy to define morality without referring to Gods."

    I'm afraid you're off a bit here. First, that is *not* what "the axiological argument states." Second, the argument asks for the *ground* of objective moral claims. We take it that they have actual metaphysical existence. "They" can actually *obligate.* Etc. So, what grounds these claims?

    " Okay then, let's just say what is right is what God WOULD say is right."

    It's hard to see how this shows that these moral prescriptions *actually exist.* It's hard to see how an *imaginary* person can *obligate* someone. These seems like Santa Clause atheology: Better watch out, better not pout, you better not cry I'm telling you why, Santa Clause is coming to town. He's making a list, checking it twice, gonna find out who's naught or nice." Mike, have you not let go of your belief in Santa, yet? I call your type of ethical grounding the "Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Clause" approach.

    Further, your theory is old. It's basically the "Ideal Observer theory." This is critiqued by atheists here:

    http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/taner_edis/review_of_martin.html

    and here:

    http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/martin_review.shtml

    for example.

    Moreover, how would we decide between competing "gods?" Why would, say, the Christian view of God be taken to be that which supplies rationality to our moral claims rather than, say, the man who worships the Pedophile god?

    It's hard to account for how these moral entities got here in the first place. Surely they can't represent the nature of a hypothetical being!!

    And, what about justice? Will there every be ultimate justice given your imaginary deity view? It's hard to see why. Indeed, why should I be moral? If I have the smarts, the money, and the ability to pull off heinous moral acts, and then I vow to commit suicide if I ever get caught, will my deeds ever be judged? Will my victims ever receive justice?

    And, why should I live according to the imaginary claims of an imaginary god?

    Sorry, Mike, but your answer to the atheistic problem of morality ends up showing just how bad one does need an ontological God to provide a basis for morality.

    Btw, I responded to your claim about how the mere presence of another religious text doesn't refute my claim to how I know my God exists.

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/09/sesame-street-atheism.html

    ReplyDelete
  23. I see Paul beat me to the punch here. Not much left for me to add, but I'll toss this in for Mike too.

    The only way for God to actually be an answer to anything is if He exists. An imaginary God is the same as no God.

    Thus, if we imagine God, our imaginary God provides no reason for us to do anything than does having no God in the first place.

    Thus, your argument reduces to, "I am moral because I choose to be moral." Which is nice...unless you happen to be Charles Manson.

    And that's the point. If you simply are imagining a God, then the God you imagine will be a God made in your own image. He will be nothing other than you; and as a result, you've done nothing to solve the moral problem.

    Now you can certainly feel free to argue that we do not need God, that we can each define our own morality as we see fit, etc etc etc. But don't pretend that that is the same thing as Presuppositionalism. Oh, and while you're at it, learn to argue for it too.

    Because we will point out the flaws in your thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous said:

    Checkmate!

    *********

    Don't think so, Anonymous.

    Did you miss my bishop in a fianchettoed position? I think I'll take your queen now if you don't mind, thank you very much.

    :-)

    ReplyDelete