tommyedison Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 Whenever anyone brings up the argument of the existence of God and I say that it is just an arbitrary assertion, they say that atleast it is possible that God exists even though it is an arbitrary assertion. Then they further go on to say that atheism is faith and agnosticism is much better. The same is with other assertions like the the non-existence of everything, the existence of contradictions, fantasies like aliens could be attacking or living in a part of the world right now, etc. How do you defend yourself against this barrage of rubbish which I think is nearly impossible to refute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 There is compelling evidence that god does not exist: god contradicts the nature of existence. I don't think the existence of god is an arbitrary belief, I think it's an actually false belief. These are probably the same people who wold also say that you should be agnostic about the existence of dragons, Santa Claus, the Abdominal Snowman, the free lunch, pixies, unicorns, an invisible third eye in the middle of your forehead, and other lunatic claims. You can't "prove" that these things don't exist, therefore ignorance is the better stance, in their epistemology. At some point, these guys will have to admit that they don't take their nonsense seriously, which is where you have good evidence that they are just joking. Try this. Tell them that there is a pack of rabid invisible killer wolves and a flock of hungry vampires outside their door, and if they were serious in their belief that the arbitrary is possible, then they have to admit that this is possible; and therefore they are taking a serious chance with their lives if they go outside. Now ask them to stand in the bathtub, full of water (add a cut of salt), and have them juggle a plugged-in television set. I'm betting that they will consider that too dangerous, because it is possible they would drop the TV and electrocute themselves. So if they still go outside, knowing that it's possible that there are vampires and wolves outside the door, ready to tear them to pieces the instant they show up, then you have clear evidence that they do not take their made-up belief in the "possible" at all seriously. If they reject the wolf-and-vampire theory, ask them why they don't believe you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 Abdominal snowman? (I'm actually less agnostic on this than on the Abominable snowman.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socionomer Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 People like this could be described as "possibilists". "Possibilism" is something that most people engage in whenever discussing subjects for which there is little or no evidence or proof of their existence in nature. They typically assign (usually subconsciously) a percentage value to the level of certainty of belief they have for the existence or truth of things (like ghosts, gods, aliens, magic, etc....) and adjust those values as evidence builds or is refuted. The evidence of gifts under the Christmas tree contributed to my 100% belief in Santa until the age of 8 when my mother refuted it. (Were my faith stronger she would have been forced to present store receipts as further evidence that the gifts were not manufactured by elves at the North Pole, but I wasn't too hard to convince). Possibilists rarely examine "evidence" critically enough before assigning values of probability or certainty to things. Alien "abductees" (provided they're not consciously lying) may have a 95-100% belief in aliens, whereas the typical reader of National Enquirer may "only" admit to believing in a 10% "probablity" of existence of "aliens". ("Possibilism" here should not be confused with the belief in the possibilities of human potential embodied by optimistic entrepreneurial spirits who invent and produce marvelous works). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgessLau Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 Whenever anyone brings up the argument of the existence of God and I say that it is just an arbitrary assertion, they say that atleast it is possible that God exists even though it is an arbitrary assertion. ... How do you defend yourself against this barrage of rubbish which I think is nearly impossible to refute. The first place you can start, in preparing yourself ahead of time, is to make sure you understand the concept of "arbitrary." What do you mean by arbitrary? Leonard Peikoff's taped lecture series, Objectivism Through Induction, devotes a whole session, if I recall correctly, to this concept. He thoroughly "chews" the subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Rolfe Posted October 31, 2004 Report Share Posted October 31, 2004 Oops....edited Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyedison Posted November 1, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 What do you mean by arbitrary? Arbitrary:- Random Arbitrary assertion:- any claim made without any evidence whatsoever. For example, once I was told on an Internet forum by a Buddhist that I couldn't really know that there was a giant invisible cactus over my computer monitor or not. It would have been no problem if this had been the attitude of a small bunch of crackpots. The problem is that this is the attitude of many people atleast in regard to certainty, morality, values, ideas, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgessLau Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 Arbitrary assertion:- any claim made without any evidence whatsoever. This is a start. It names two necessary elements of "arbitrary assertion." The first is that there must be a claim, that is, a statement of alleged (claimed) fact. Second, the claimant presents no evidence. The criteria list shouldn't stop there, however. The reason is that every writer or speaker makes claims not backed by evidence at that time and place. The justification is clear: No writer, in a particular circumstance (such as a lecture or essay) can prove every statement he makes, as part of his presentation. If he tried to, his 10 page essay would swell to 100 pages; and then if he tried to prove all the elements of each proof statement, the essay would swell to 1000 pages, and so forth. A speaker or writer, in his lecture or essay, is obligated to initially provide evidence only for the essentials of his claim. For example, in For the New Intellectual (hb p. 6, pb p. 12, or ARL, p. 225), Ayn Rand discusses professional intellectuals. In contrasting modern intellectuals to earlier ones, she says, "There were no professional intellectuals in the Middle Ages, there were only monks in monasteries." She provides no evidence for this assertion. That does not mean her claim is arbitrary. It is not an essential of her essay. Trying to justify every justifying claim would lead to an unlimited progression of text -- an impossibility. Later, listeners or readers may question the speaker or writer about some of his secondary statements, asking for evidence for those too. Then the speaker or writer, if circumstances permit, can respond with the evidence he has for those secondary, supporting statements. This is where the third element of the idea of "arbitrary" (assertion) comes in: An arbitrary claim is one for which the claimant refuses or fails to provide evidence when queried. The example that Dr. Peikoff gives, if I recall correctly, is the claims made by the "channeler," Shirley McClaine. She claimed that what she said under certain circumstances was actually spoken through her from the spirit of a Chinese sage living 5000 years ago. As such, this claim is not arbitrary -- yet. Only when she is asked for evidence for the claim that there was such a sage and that he is now speaking through her, and when she responds by saying something such as, "Because that is the way I feel," then the claim is arbitrary because she is refusing to provide evidence. (Emotions and feelings are not proofs.) She has, thus, made verification or falsification of her statement impossible. She does not offer even a route for investigation. Rational investigation is impossible. Now her claims are arbitrary. So, in summary, there are three elements that constitute an arbitrary assertion: It is a statement; it is about some supposed fact (aspect of reality); and when challenged the speaker refuses or fails to provide evidence. Stated negatively, a claim is not arbitrary if the speaker has erred or is illogical in his argument (which can be an innocent mistake) or has initially not provided evidence. The speaker is arbitrary when he refuses or fails to provide evidence for his claim when challenged. I welcome corrections and additions to my understanding of this concept of the arbitrary. It is central to a current, long-term project. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socionomer Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 People who make arbitrary assertions often do provide "evidence". So I suggest using the phrase "satisfactory evidence" or something similar to leave less wriggle room for alternate interpretations or confusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshRyan Posted November 1, 2004 Report Share Posted November 1, 2004 People like this could be described as "possibilists". "Possibilism" is something that most people engage in whenever discussing subjects for which there is little or no evidence or proof of their existence in nature... ("Possibilism" here should not be confused with the belief in the possibilities of human potential embodied by optimistic entrepreneurial spirits who invent and produce marvelous works). I don't think it's necessary to coin a term like "possibilism"--especially given the confusions that you noted could arise from its use--when another term already exists that is a perfectly good candidate to use in this situation: "agnosticism." That term can easily be applied to a broader epistemological context than merely on the question of the existence of some supernatural being(s). Indeed, Ayn Rand used the term "agnosticism" in this broader context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socionomer Posted November 2, 2004 Report Share Posted November 2, 2004 I don't think it's necessary to coin a term like "possibilism"--especially given the confusions that you noted could arise from its use--when another term already exists that is a perfectly good candidate to use in this situation: "agnosticism." That term can easily be applied to a broader epistemological context than merely on the question of the existence of some supernatural being(s). Indeed, Ayn Rand used the term "agnosticism" in this broader context. Good point Ash. People might also accept a "possibilist" label as a badge of honor, whereas pointing out their epistemological agnosticism is not something they're likely to go around bragging about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshRyan Posted November 3, 2004 Report Share Posted November 3, 2004 ...whereas pointing out their epistemological agnosticism is not something they're likely to go around bragging about. You might be surprised. After all, many people are proudly agnostic on theological questions, and people do tend to go around bragging about dumb things (such as selflessness). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.