Epistemic Aspergers Syndrome

The questions and objections themselves always point in the right directions, they just aren't followed out as far as the questioners want to go. Instead there are dismissals and or loops. Of course there are necessary logical loops and existential loops. But they’re not the presets used by the loop gurus. They’re the loops discovered by following out the questions and objections, simply following the responses in the natural order of knowing through discussion. Moreover, either be up front and specific about it and capable of justifying it in some sense,  or expect to get accused of begging the question---in addition to looping presets. Consequently, an adequate philosophy of logic has to be called in as arbiter, when reason and logic themselves come under scrutiny. There's nothing else left.

Moreover, when logical sequence and existential reality are conflated as a means of determining truth, and a logical question about inferential sequence gets answered with something involving what was supposedly in question and now being argued for---that is frustrating and, for many, infuriating, regardless of belief or disbelief in God. Is -that- good news?

For the self-fulfilling martyrs out there, of course, it's a sign from God to commence personal judgments.

Balking on Command

For all the lambasting of the mainstream media, it's almost an unwritten rule that until an issue is raised in that media vocal advocates on any side simply will not talk about it. I first raised the following issue in 2006.

If an argument for a claim about the ontological status of certain objects is made, the question is how to arbitrate that ontology without self-exempting both the criteria and the premises based on that criteria. If they are self-exempting, the same question arises about them. If they're not self-exempting, then their own authority to arbitrate ontology is merely question-begging as long as the issue is not even being addressed.

Not sure why theists, as well as atheists, continue to ignore this issue.  Philosophers and apologists are remiss in posturing about logicality and yet maintaining mutual silence about this. It's like a secret agreement to just collectively whistle past the epistemic graveyard. I can guarantee that these questions will only loom larger as they continue to be ignored.

Tell-Tale Atheism: Still Aping Paranoid Fundies

If I was still an atheist, I wouldn’t waste my time shadowing some haunted paranoia about religion, because the mere non-existence of God, if true, is sufficient to eliminate the entire enterprise. The very idea of there being the slightest need or “obligation” to engage in such implicit pandering, when atheism was supposed to be enough, is an insult to serious atheist thinkers who have no need for such tiresome hand-wringing.

Today’s atheists think some favorable comparison to Christianity or religion in general is going to somehow strengthen their case or show others that they are in some sense “better”, when this is merely an admission that they can’t quite handle the complete absence of any standard of good, obligation, ought, or should or any other standard for what is nothing more than a fundy-like lust to scold others. It's an admission that atheism is somehow not enough to keep them from moralistic whining, and only mirrors their religious counterparts.

Talk about playing into the same syndrome that was the original basis for rejecting an opposing view.

And now we’re going to have scientific commandments thumped at us by the “new” fundy atheists.

I’ve got some arbitrary news for such sunday schooler wannabees.

But the philosophically parasitic atheists' need to justify or falsify anything is the real  god getting a free ride here.

Kai Nielsen's Elephant Sighting

"For 'God commanded it' to be a morally relevant reason for doing something, let alone a definitive moral reason for doing it, it must, at least, be the case that God is good. A believer, of course, believes this to be the case, but what grounds does he have for this belief? If he says that he knows this to be true because the record of the Bible, the state of the world or the behavior of Jesus displays God's goodness, the believer himself clearly displays by his very response that he has some logically prior criterion for moral belief that is not based on the fact that there is a deity."

--Kai Nielsen, Ethics Without God, Buffalo NY: Prometheus, 1973, page 22.

Calling Philosophy's Bluff

I'm constructing a database that will be graphically renderable in a similar way to that of the chart, in my fb profile, of the history of art and philosophy movements, but instead of movements, the graphical objects will be statements. Instead of historical connections, logical connectors (claimed inference relation labels) between them will be visible at a glance or click, similar to zooming in and out of online geographical maps, thus making lines of inference instantly traceable from any particular statement to any other in the same logical thread. Logically primitive statements will be labeled ap, as in my public databases already, to designate them as Assumed Premise, until and unless something arises that is claimed to infer them.

Consequently, I'm going to be looking for individuals who want to -own- areas I'm not interested in or dont' have the time to cover (including some aspects of the atheism-theism debate), and who will fill out the entire scope of argumentation on whatever issues they may be interested in. Such individuals do not have to be formally trained in philosophy, but must have a public history of logical analysis in philosophy and must be involved in an ongoing systematic program of reading and studying philosophical journals and books.  It could -possibly- lead to a paid position eventually (I'm working on this), but don't contact me about it unless you have the time and are already involved in these activities. The project will be open source, both in programming and content, which means you must already be motivated to collect comprehensive inventories of views, arguments, objections, refutations, and so on, for your chosen issues, aside from any additional benefit you might derive from participating in this project. Open to individuals of any persuasion who are interested in all the arguments for, and all the objections to, all views---and all analyzed to the nth degree. Heavy emphasis on background assumptions, self-reference, metatheoretic issues, and philosophy of logic.

111 Years Ago Today

Of the many signs of an approaching death, perhaps the most infallible indication is the growth of large cities. City people are traditionless, matter of fact, religionless, clever, unfruitful, and contemptuous of the considerate person, especially the considerate person from the country. It's a doom that grips mankind and brings the inevitable results. There's no use in hoping for the impossible. We may deplore the present, but it cannot be otherwise. If someone says that fatalism is discouraging, we reply that false hopes are hardly a source of enduring optimism. Those who are able to avoid wishful thinking can see the handwriting on the wall. We of today face---we of today are---the decline of the West.

--Redaction of Gordon Clark, summarizing Spengler's The Decline of the West. From Gordon Clark, A Christian View of Men and Things, Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 1952, pages 55-56. This gives the context of the "handwriting on the wall" quote I posted recently. Clark is summarizing Spengler, but it's clearly Clark's statement.

Being vs Knowing

The question of atheism is precisely what is the inferential or epistemic justification of the claim that God exists. Sure, given the premise that God exists, everything is existentially based on God's being and sovereignty. But in the role of atheist, I'm not questioning that conditional implication.

I'm questioning only its antecedent: that God exists.

My question would be how belief in God can be justified logically, as well as how to logically justify the notion that God is the only adequate ontological or whatever ground for morality. But by morality I just mean deciding from among the various possible proximate or ultimate consequences in relation to possible actions. If God exists, then there is a mind that can bring about ultimate consequences, and I would do well to pay attention to that mind just like any other inescapable factor I might confront as an existing finite mind, precisely and especially because of its ultimate capabilities.