By what means or method do you check that what you believe is true, is true?

Atheist View

The Atheist Perspective

Evidence and logic.

That which does not follow by any logically valid inference from all the evidence available, is not to be believed. Everything else is to be believed in proportion to the weight of the available evidence.

This means you cannot leave evidence out; no valid conclusion can be reached from a biased sample of the evidence. And you can't rely on fallacies to reach conclusions from the evidence.

I discuss how to do this in greater detail in my books Sense and Goodness without God, Part II, and Part IV.1, and Proving History. I also recommend Bo Bennett's book Logically Fallacious and Baggini and Fosl's Philosopher's Toolkit. I give many examples of applying this method on my blog at RichardCarrier.info.

Comments

Interesting that there have been no answers to this from the Christian or Muslim correspondents. As the poster of the original question, I know it was asked of all, and it was posted some time ago.

— Anonymous

The other columnists would probably answer the exact same way as the atheist, except that they would actually be able to offer a justification for the use of logic and evidence, something atheists can only arbitrarily appeal to without even hypothetical warrant.

— 2x

When you say "other columnists", do you mean the Muslim and Hindu columnists too?

— Anonymous

I assume so. Atheism is pretty much alone in its blatant arbitrariness. I am not saying any of the other columnists will be convincing or correct... just that they would all make a passable attempt at getting beyond a blatantly arbitrary response.

— 2x

So if a Muslim can offer, as you seem to claim, a non-arbitrary Islamic justification for her use of logic and evidence, the Christian presuppositionalist claim to be the *only* worldview which permits justified use of logic and evidence is therefore incorrect, yes?

— Anonymous

All I meant is that the atheist view is blatantly arbitrary on the face of it. Other views may also be arbitrary, but none as blatantly so.

— 2x

That's not what you said but nice try at backtracking!!

— Anonymous

2x,

If I may weigh in, it seems to me to be possible that the reason that the Christian presuppositionalists (CP) have not answered this question is that it is not possible, or at the very least not coherent, for them to check that what they believe is true or not.

According to the presuppositionalist Mr McCabe, it is not possible to "know" anything apart from what god has revealed to us or programmed us to believe (cont.)

— Ozymandias

In the CP worldview, there is no conceivable source of knowledge external to or apart from that. One can reasonably ask then, against what could a CP check that what she believes to be true is in fact true? The only conceivable way that a CP could check whether what god has revealed to her or programmed her to believe is true or not is to check it against that which god has revealed to her or programmed her to believe.

This of course is completely circular.

— Ozymandias

Ozzy, you seem to be condemning a coherentist framework for being coherent (circular) instead of incoherent (a broken circle) but you do not seem interested in condemning the atheistic foundationalist framework portrayed above (a broken circle) for being purely arbitrary. Seems peculiar to me.

— 2x

2x,

I'm not "condemning" anyone or anything. I'm simply pointing out that it seems to me that CPs cannot answer the question as it was put because they do not, and cannot possibly, in the context of their worldview, have any means or method of checking whether what they believe is true.

It is likewise peculiar to me that CPs claim that the non-theist worldview is incoherent because it is circular (the example often given is that non-theists use logic to justify their use of logic) and yet do not acknowledge the circularity of their own worldview, particularly in the context of this question.

— Ozymandias

Ozzy, I don't know what CPs you're referring to.

"Every worldview, when reduced to its most basic fundamentals, requires self-attestation, or, in other words, a circular argument." - McCabe
https://www.godcontention.org/christian/is-the-bible-true

"All arguments of this type are circular in a way. If a rationalist, for example, tries to prove that human reason is the ultimate rational authority, he can do nothing else than appeal to a rational argument, using reason to prove reason. He cannot appeal to anything higher than reason, because he believes reason is the highest authority." - John Frame
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/an-interview-with-john-frame-on-apologetics-to-the-glory-of-god/

Greg Bahnsen, Cornelius Van Til, Jason Lisle:
https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/apologetics/bahnsen-on-circular-reasoning/

— 2x

The non-theos view is incoherent not because it is circular, though, but because it is a broken circle. It tries to be circular and fails. That's the claim of the CPs that I've read. The non-theos view pretends to justify reason using reason but in the end appeals to a lack of reason to justify everything (like the big bang, or gravity). The teos view appeals to the reason of the theos, who, in their view, has reason. But in the non-theos view, the big bang does not have reason.

What gave you your beliefs? God, who knows everything, or the big bang, which knows nothing? The former view allows for justified beliefs. The latter view simply can't.

— 2x

2x,

I'm grateful to you for clarifying my faulty understanding of your position. I take it then that you have no issue with circular worldviews?

Presumably you would then have no issue with me using logic to justify my use of logic? Is that correct?

— Ozymandias

Ozzy, did logic give you the beliefs you have? Did logic give you your foundational principles? Did logic give you your very first beliefs? Did logic give you your initial rational premises? If so, whose logic? Your own logic can only give you conclusions, not first premises, right? So whose logic was behind your initial rational premises?

— 2x

2x,

Thank you for the excellent polemic. It's just a shame that it completely avoided the questions that I asked.

In the immortal words of Dragon's Den...I'm out.

— Ozymandias

Ozzy, I did not avoid it. I pointed out that your logic alone cannot actually justify the use of your logic. It is a broken circle.

— 2x

2x,

May I point out that you and Mr McCabe appear to have radically different views on what constitutes a "circular argument"

As you pointed out earlier, Mr McCabe stated that "Every worldview, when reduced to its...fundamentals, requires self-attestation, or, in other words, a circular argument. For example a rationalist...can only attempt to justify his reliance on reason by...using reason"

I feel that it would lead to a less pointless discussion if you could decide amongst yourselves one way or the other.

— Ozymandias

Just FYI 2X a broken circle is aka a line, or if broken several times it's several lines so not entirely sure what point you think you're making my dude

— Anonymous

By what means or method do you check that what you believe is true, is true?

More Questions

Comments