Skip to main content

The Presupposition of Nonsense



I'm a bit grumpy right now. I have written more calmly on this issue here. But today I am grumpy.



I have this True Believer friend who constantly tries to reconvert me. He uses C. S. Lewis' Argument from Reason all the time, but he infects it (bad as it already was) with presuppositionalism.



His contention is that atheism is solipsistic and therefore has no ontological ground for reasoning. This is precisely backward. Theism is solipsistic. Lewis was a solipsist. I get there in two ways. One is through Hitchens who so tersely demonstrated that the assumption that the cosmos was designed by a being with oneself in mind, and pretending that this is a humble belief, is irresolvably dissonant.




The cosmos is not yours, and it is not your dad's, and it is not your inheritance. So much for solipsism. Now, as for presuppositional arguments from reason. Again, I can depend on the rigors of empiricism because that method makes no prior metaphysical claim. One simply designs tests to discover what is, not what is within one's worldview. If there is a God mucking with the gears, empiricism will discover it.



Theism, though, lacks the exact ontological ground that the argument from reason is complaining about. If the cosmos is the "spilled milk" of chaos, as Lewis complains, why should that impede our ability to know and study it? If the cosmos is the spilled milk of god, however, over which she claims constant dominion, there is a HUGE defeater to the knowledge of it. This is that she might decide to make of the cosmos any other thing she likes, or she might decide to hide its true identity. This method cannot even seek the gears for the monkey that guards them.



Anyway, what do you think?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Review of David Tennant's Hamlet

He That Increaseth Knowledge Increaseth Sorrow : How Hamlet Demonstrates That Conscience does Make Cowards of Us All  It is among the most pleasurable, and the most maddening, enterprises in life to read The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark by William Shakespeare. Pleasurable because of its inexhaustible depth, its perfect turns of phrase, and its expansion of the art form that is the English language. Maddening because of the impenetrable layers of madness throughout the text, and within its many characters. At the end of the play, one is left feeling that something profound has been said, but that one is powerless to reiterate what it was. In Stephen Greenblatt’s seminal treatment of Hamlet he identified eleven essential unanswered questions in the play, among which are, “Why does Hamlet delay avenging the murder of his father by Claudius, his father’s brother? How much guilt does Hamlet’s mother, Gertrude . . . bear in this crime? How trustworthy is the ghost of Ha...

Conference Recap Part 4: From Now On It's Us and Them (Hymn 258)

Our Great Leader, who is Jesus ,      Not Elohim, but Yahweh, Please don’t kill, don’t maim, or cleave us,      We’re with you and not with “they”      Here’s the chorus of this war song           Here is where we pledge to fight      With our president who’ll speak next           Against all he says aren’t right Why are hymns so bathed in bloodshed;      Why the battle metaphors Why not sing of beauty instead      Why do You hate peace not wars?      Here’s the battle chorus once more           Belief is a flag we fly      Those young men who knock on your door           Preach with Vader, “Join or die!” (Starts at 2:53:17) Every Conference you remind us      That our loved ones are at ri...

Richard Bushman and The Sorcerer's Stone

I used to think that Joseph Smith apologetics was a respectable way to spend one's time. Even one's career. Big names like Richard Bushman , Terryl Givens , and Margaret Barker were doing it, so there must be something there. Then I realized that Joseph Smith's early truth claims are as bogus as those of your local psychic. I'm not kidding. Yesterday I was listening to a symposium that took place in 2005 at the Library of Congress to commemorate the 200th birthday of "The Prophet." Nothing would make me happier than to link to this symposium here, but it seems to have been stripped. I have the audio and I will upload it to You Tube as soon as I can. The three academic heavy weights mentioned above were participants, along with many others whose credentials demand respect. Bushman was the first speaker. He made some terrific points about the malleability of history and the degree to which one’s starting context matters. I expected him to provide n...