[FoRK] reasoned conversation 9/25 Re: Truth, God

[Dr. Ernie Prabhakar]

Hi Corinna,

On Sep 23, 2006, at 12:14 PM, Corinna wrote:
> I have yet to meet a Christian (or read a Christian book) who was  
> able to engage
> me in a reasoned conversation without appealing to the authority of  
> the Bible.
> Even when I explicitly said that I rejected that axiom, so any  
> argument which
> needs that axiom could not be allowed.

Nice to meet you.  I am a Christian, and I would love to engage you  
in a reasoned conversation without appealing to the authority of the  
Bible. :-)  In case you care, my starting axioms[1] are here:

http://radicalcentrism.org/manifesto.html

You may not like those axioms either, but at least it gives us  
something non-Biblical to argue about. :-)

Let me start up front by saying that I too am largely disgusted by  
what passes for most of Christian apologetics these days (though I  
love those apologists anyway :-0).   And to a large extent, I concur  
with most of the criticisms leveled against Christianity that have  
been discussed here.  If the Christianity you've seen is truly anti- 
empirical, anti-rational, and traditionalist then I commend you for  
rejecting it.  I (and most of my Christian friends) are just as  
horrified at the thought of religion (and theocracy!) on those terms  
as you are.

But, the question I have is why so many people here are so quick to  
assume that *my* version in Christianity is equal to the various  
pathetic examples presented herein.  Ought I to assume that your  
version of atheism is equal to self-indulgence, immorality, and  
nihilism?  Or might I hope that any Friend of Rohit Khare just might  
be a little more humane and reasonable than those of that "type" I've  
met before?

I am perfectly willing to concede that you may have valid reasons for  
your disbelief, but lack access to some of the evidence I have.  Are  
you at least willing to consider the possibility that I also have  
well-justified empirical reasons for my belief, rather than just the  
various "nonsenses" you've seen in the past?

> As another example, does your paradigm allow for mutually  
> contradictory
> statements to be coherent? It is logically inconsistent/incoherent  
> for a being
> to be simultaneously omni-everything.

That's a non-trivial question.  On the one hand, as a quantum  
physicist I have a slightly different vision of contradiction and  
coherency than most people.   On the other hand, as a non-Platonist I  
think most of our "omni" definitions are quite silly. :-)

> You're educated enough that you've probably already come across  
> these common
> objections. They are both based in logic, not evidence. Does your  
> paradigm reject logical reasoning?

Not at all.  But, I am well aware that both our axioms *and* our  
choice of logical systems are outside the purview of the systems  
themselves, and thus require some higher meta-beliefs (cf. Godel)  
Would you agree?

> Non-Euclidian geometry is based on a different set of axioms than  
> Euclidian
> geometry. Apparently, athiesm is based on a different set of axioms  
> than theism
> is...

Absolutely.  That is why I appealed to meta-paradigms.  Clearly, we  
might easily have different:
a) axioms
b) logical systems
c) standards of evidence
d) datasets

and I'd love to discuss what those might be, so we can compare them  
on "neutral" terrain.

On Sep 22, 2006, at 7:11 AM, Russell Turpin wrote:
> But paradigms? I have no idea what it means for one to be true. Can  
> you
> explain that?

I'll try.  As a physicist (and Kuhn-ian), I consider a paradigm to  
"true" (in whatever sense that word can be meaningfully applied) when  
(a-d) result in accurate predictions with a specified domain.  Does  
that help?

>> I  don't find your lack of belief justifiable within *my* paradigm.
>>
>
> I find it very strange to require justification for LACK of belief.
> Do you believe in every statement you stumble across, until something
> causes you to lose that belief?

No, perhaps I phrased that poorly.   What I am saying is that every  
paradigm has:
	I. some propositions for which belief is justified
	II. some propositions for which disbelief is justified
	III. some propositions for which neither belief or disbelief can be  
justified
	(but hopefully not where both are are justified :-)

In this case, I was claiming that your disbelief was in category (II)  
according to my paradigm.  Does that make sense?

All I'm asking is for the chance to respectfully dialogue about (a-d)  
to discover what those are for each of us, rather than simply  
assuming that the other person's basis is a priori false.  Fair enough?

Best,
-- Ernie P.

[1] For the record, the way I believe in the Bible is a *consequence*  
of my Core Beliefs, not the source of them (though they are mutually  
reinforcing).

P.S.  To avoid overload and thrashing, I'll try to limit myself to  
one email per day, so I beg your indulgence for any annoying latency.

P.P.S.  If you would like a more thorough exposition of my beliefs,  
you can see an ongoing dialogue about these topics at <http:// 
urlx.org/homepage.mac.com/670f0>.