Resolved: that Peikoff is wrong about agosticism

[DavidOdden]

But the claim does lack evidence, doesn't it?

The "does exist" claim, yes. But not all false claims are arbitrary. To quote from OPAR p. 164, "An arbitrary claim is one for which there is no evidence, either perceptual or conceptual". Not just "no evidence in support", but "no evidence", period. So since there is ample evidence, all pointing away from the conclusion, the claim is not arbitrary. It is false: "when the mental content does not thus correspond, when it constitutes not a recognition of reality but a contradiction of it, then it is false". That is what the god claim is: a contradiction of reality, thus a false claim.

However: I fully agree that the positive claim should in addition be treated with the same intellectual contempt as the Hegelian gremlin claim, because the theists will simply try to diffuse the non-existence proof by claiming that god is above existence (to put it in Latin, supernatural).

[Seeker]

However: I fully agree that the positive claim should in addition be treated with the same intellectual contempt as the Hegelian gremlin claim, because the theists will simply try to diffuse the non-existence proof by claiming that god is above existence (to put it in Latin, supernatural).

Aren't most concepts of God supernatural though? What good does it do to be able to disprove the existence of a natural God when that's not what people mean by God? It's misunderstandings like this that probably make atheism seem silly to a lot of people. It seems to me that we're back to having no proof of God's (supernatural) non-existence and dismissing, as arbitrary, the positive claim. That makes sense to me - then we're no longer using the existence of apples to disprove the existence of oranges.

Edited November 20, 2006 by Seeker

[KendallJ]

Aren't most concepts of God supernatural though? What good does it do to be able to disprove the existence of a natural God when that's not what people mean by God? It's misunderstandings like this that probably make atheism seem silly to a lot of people. It seems to me that we're back to having no proof of God's (supernatural) non-existence and dismissing, as arbitrary, the positive claim. That makes sense to me - then we're no longer using the existence of apples to disprove the existence of oranges.

It's amazing here how the agnostics (or at least those who argue from the point of view) keep proving Peikoff's point.

The supernatural is as arbitrary and invalid a claim as God. Seeker all that you are doing is giving credence to the same arbitrary claim that the original poster does, except whereas he gives standing to the arbitrary claim of God, you give standing to the arbitrary claim of supernatural. Supernatural is as much a non-sequitir as God. This isn't an apples an oranges sort of argument. The existence of nature, disproves the "super"-natural. Nature is all there is.

[Inspector]

It seems to me that we're back to having no proof of God's (supernatural) non-existence and dismissing, as arbitrary, the positive claim. That makes sense to me - then we're no longer using the existence of apples to disprove the existence of oranges.

No, a supernatural God is in direct contradiction of the axioms and all evidence. That claim is false.

A "natural god" is the claim that is arbirary, just like gremlins.

Please pay more attention; this has now been repeated several times.

[RichardParker]

The "does exist" claim, yes. But not all false claims are arbitrary. To quote from OPAR p. 164, "An arbitrary claim is one for which there is no evidence, either perceptual or conceptual". Not just "no evidence in support", but "no evidence", period. So since there is ample evidence, all pointing away from the conclusion, the claim is not arbitrary. It is false: "when the mental content does not thus correspond, when it constitutes not a recognition of reality but a contradiction of it, then it is false". That is what the god claim is: a contradiction of reality, thus a false claim.

However: I fully agree that the positive claim should in addition be treated with the same intellectual contempt as the Hegelian gremlin claim, because the theists will simply try to diffuse the non-existence proof by claiming that god is above existence (to put it in Latin, supernatural).

The idea that any claim that contradicts reality is not arbitrary but false essentially means that any arbitrary claim is not arbitrary but false. In essence, what you are saying is that there is no such thing as an arbitrary claim.

If I claim that there are green gremlins on Mars, then there is certainly ample evidence pointing away from this claim: Mars has no atmosphere to support life, has no water to support life, etc. My claim certainly contradicts everything that is thus far known about reality. Bingo, my claim is no longer arbitrary, it is false.

Edited November 20, 2006 by RichardParker

[DavidOdden]

The idea that any claim that contradicts reality is not arbitrary but false essentially means that any arbitrary claim is not arbitrary but false. In essence, what you are saying is that there is no such thing as an arbitrary claim.

Interestingly, I was going to ask you if you think there is such a thing as a false claim. Here is how I understand true, false and arbitrary -- I want to know if you disagree with any part of this:

Truth is a relationship between a proposition and fact, i.e. the recognition of reality. If the product of your cognition (as a proposition) corresponds to reality, it is true. If the mental content does not correspond and contradicts reality -- it inversely corresponds -- it is false. An arbitrary claim has no relationship to evidence and thus to man’s means of acquiring knowledge.

I surmise that you reject my position that a claim contradicting reality is false (that is how I understand "The idea that any claim that contradicts reality is not arbitrary but false essentially means that any arbitrary claim is not arbitrary but false", followed by the conclusion that this would mean that there is no such thing as an arbitrary claim).

If there is no evidence, the claim is arbitrary and the claim cannot be processed. If there is evidence, the claim can be cognitively processed, and it is either true or false: if the proposition describes a fact, it is true; if it anti-describes a fact (contradicts reality) it is false.

If I claim that there are green gremlins on Mars, then there is certainly ample evidence pointing away from this claim: Mars has no atmosphere to support life, has no water to support life, etc.

I will admit that I'm not sure about why Peikoff used the Hegel-studying Venusian gremlin convention example, and maybe I should stop using that one. If you'd like to substitute Mars, I don't think it matters. An arbitrary claim can be made non-arbitrary by adding evidence: being "arbitrary" is not a permanent state, where once someone advances an arbitrary claim, the claim -- even if it actually described a fact -- is forever doomed to be arbitrary. You've contributed evidence, and that evidence shows that the claim is in fact false. That was a nice contribution, but by no means required since nobody here is seriously giving a second's worth of consideration to the gremlin claim. I don't think that Peikoff is saying that it is wrong to contribute evidence bearing on an arbitrary claim, just that one has no intellectual obligation to even consider such a claim that has no evidence.

[RichardParker]

Interestingly, I was going to ask you if you think there is such a thing as a false claim. Here is how I understand true, false and arbitrary -- I want to know if you disagree with any part of this:

Truth is a relationship between a proposition and fact, i.e. the recognition of reality. If the product of your cognition (as a proposition) corresponds to reality, it is true. If the mental content does not correspond and contradicts reality -- it inversely corresponds -- it is false. An arbitrary claim has no relationship to evidence and thus to man’s means of acquiring knowledge.

I surmise that you reject my position that a claim contradicting reality is false (that is how I understand "The idea that any claim that contradicts reality is not arbitrary but false essentially means that any arbitrary claim is not arbitrary but false", followed by the conclusion that this would mean that there is no such thing as an arbitrary claim).

If there is no evidence, the claim is arbitrary and the claim cannot be processed. If there is evidence, the claim can be cognitively processed, and it is either true or false: if the proposition describes a fact, it is true; if it anti-describes a fact (contradicts reality) it is false.I will admit that I'm not sure about why Peikoff used the Hegel-studying Venusian gremlin convention example, and maybe I should stop using that one. If you'd like to substitute Mars, I don't think it matters. An arbitrary claim can be made non-arbitrary by adding evidence: being "arbitrary" is not a permanent state, where once someone advances an arbitrary claim, the claim -- even if it actually described a fact -- is forever doomed to be arbitrary. You've contributed evidence, and that evidence shows that the claim is in fact false. That was a nice contribution, but by no means required since nobody here is seriously giving a second's worth of consideration to the gremlin claim. I don't think that Peikoff is saying that it is wrong to contribute evidence bearing on an arbitrary claim, just that one has no intellectual obligation to even consider such a claim that has no evidence.

I understood you to mean that an arbitrary claim contradicts reality. Is this true? If this is so, then I reject this position since an arbitrary claim has no relationship to reality whatsoever--contradictory or otherwise. When someone utters an arbitrary claim, nothing was said, there is nothing to contradict, nothing means nothing, leads to nothing and nothing cannot be posited in any way such that it corresponds to or contradicts anything.

Edited November 20, 2006 by RichardParker

[Inspector]

I understood you to mean that an arbitrary claim contradicts reality.

Where did you come to understand that? Clearly, he did not say any such thing.

Truth is a relationship between a proposition and fact, i.e. the recognition of reality. If the product of your cognition (as a proposition) corresponds to reality, it is true. If the mental content does not correspond and contradicts reality -- it inversely corresponds -- it is false. An arbitrary claim has no relationship to evidence and thus to man’s means of acquiring knowledge.

Edited November 21, 2006 by Inspector

[RichardParker]

Where did you come to understand that? Clearly, he did not say any such thing.

If so, I will clarify my position further. Any claim for which there is no sensory-perceptual experience is arbitrary.

Since there is no sensory-perceptual experience for the existence of god, any claim for the existence of god is arbitrary.

[Inspector]

If so, I will clarify my position further. Any claim for which there is no sensory-perceptual experience is arbitrary.

Since there is no sensory-perceptual experience for the existence of god, any claim for the existence of god is arbitrary.

Again (and it seems we are going in circles here), the claim of "God" is not just arbitrary, but false, since it is in blatant defiance of all sorts of evidence.

[RichardParker]

Again (and it seems we are going in circles here), the claim of "God" is not just arbitrary, but false, since it is in blatant defiance of all sorts of evidence.

So we are agreed then, that a claim that has no sensory-perceptual experience is arbitrary?

[Inspector]

So we are agreed then, that a claim that has no sensory-perceptual experience is arbitrary?

I'd replace "sensory-perceptual experience" with "evidence," as the former is too empiricist-limited. Obviously, everything is based, in the end, on the evidence of the senses.

[RichardParker]

I'd replace "sensory-perceptual experience" with "evidence," as the former is too empiricist-limited. Obviously, everything is based, in the end, on the evidence of the senses.

Ok, so we are agreed then, that any claim without sensory-perceptual evidence is arbitrary?

[Inspector]

Ok, so we are agreed then, that any claim without sensory-perceptual evidence is arbitrary?

If there is no evidence, either for or against it, then it is arbitrary, yes.

[RichardParker]

If there is no evidence, either for or against it, then it is arbitrary, yes.

Then is it so that the distinction between the arbitrary and false is that the former has no evidence whatsoever in sensory-perceptual evidence while the later has at least some possibility in sensory-perceptual evidence?

[Inspector]

Then is it so that the distinction between the arbitrary and false is that the former has no evidence whatsoever in sensory-perceptual evidence while the later has at least some possibility in sensory-perceptual evidence?

Correct on the former, incorrect on the latter. The latter has no possibility as it directly contradicts known evidence. The former merely has no evidence in existence either for or against it.

[RichardParker]

Correct on the former, incorrect on the latter. The latter has no possibility as it directly contradicts known evidence. The former merely has no evidence in existence either for or against it.

I think the distinction we've drawn thus far is the distinction between sensory-perceptual evidence (arbitrary) and conceptual integration (false).

Edited November 21, 2006 by RichardParker

[Inspector]

I think the distinction we've drawn thus far is the distinction between sensory-perceptual evidence (arbitrary) and conceptual integration (false).

You lost me...

[DavidOdden]

I think the distinction we've drawn thus far is the distinction between sensory-perceptual evidence (arbitrary) and conceptual integration (false).

The arbitrary has no evidence whatsoever in sensory-perceptual evidence. Excluding that, there is some evidence, and the integrated evidence points to one of two conclusions, either it is a fact (true) or it is not a fact (false). But for a proposition to be a truth, it must also be certain, meaning that all evidence points in the direction that the proposition describes a fact.

[solange]

If you have some other definition to suggest, then it would have been useful if you provided it, and in much clearer terms than above, at the beginning of the thread.

I am not a lexicographer.

From Wiki:

"Modern deists hold a wide range of views on the nature of God and on whether God intervenes in the world.

Some Deists see design in nature and through this design they also see purpose in the universe and in their lives (Prime Designer)".

This would appear to apply to Einstein [Magnificent Obsession, as it were] and many "non-religious" Freemasons (Grand Architect).

Continuing from Wiki: "The overall view of Deism is to use Reason as the foundation and Experience and Nature as the basis of belief.

Under the umbrella of Modern Deism, one can find many different sub-categories. Here are some examples: Monodeism, Pandeism, Process Deism, Panendeism, Polydeism, Christian Deism, Scientific Deism, Humanistic Deism and many more. No religions exist within the category of Deism as of yet.

Scientific Deism:

Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to the principles of reasoning[1].

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective so that the scientist does not bias the interpretation of the results or change the results outright. Another basic expectation is that of making complete documentation of data and methodology available for careful scrutiny by other scientists and researchers, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempted reproduction of them."

Supposing you have a definition that does not contain such contradictions and can't be dismissed on that basis. I would submit that what you describe couldn't properly be described as the Christian God, but rather would be more akin to the Greek gods, such as Zeus.

Who said anything about the Christian God? I thought Peikoff was talking about agnostics of all faiths.

That kind of entity has already been addressed, as it is essentially the same kind of claim as the space gremlins.

I didn't address it yet. This was my first comment on it. I am addressing the issue of whether Peikoff was wrong to call agnositics cowards.

That kind of claim is arbitrary

I believe I said exactly that: agnostics generally view claims of God as arbitrary and therefore dismiss them out of hand. I further said certain deists do not maintain beliefs which contradict known scientific prinicples and were they to be confronted with evidence that any of their beliefs contradicted science, they'd reject them. This does not appear to me to be an irrational position.

and you should brush up on what Dr. Peikoff said about the epistemological status of the arbitrary. If you disagree with what he said, you should post up your argument against that.

Should? I am not following you. As I am new here and don't know the lay of the land yet, may I ask you if your name of "Inspector" indicates you are an official here and your position is to monitor what others write? If so, could you please describe how that works so I can abide by the conditions of this Forum? If not, and if I am not violating any of the rules of this Forum by thinking independently, then I think I will be the judge of what I should or should not brush up on or post.

The single thing I like best about Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy is its passionate anti-authoritarianism.

[DavidOdden]

For the record, especially if the wording is not familiar, my earlier statement:

Truth is a relationship between a proposition and fact, i.e. the recognition of reality. If the product of your cognition (as a proposition) corresponds to reality, it is true. If the mental content does not correspond and contradicts reality -- it inversely corresponds -- it is false. An arbitrary claim has no relationship to evidence and thus to man’s means of acquiring knowledge.

is a cut-and-paste condensation of Peikoff's statements about true, false and arbitrary from OPAR ch. 5. It ain't like I came up with this on my own.

[KendallJ]

The single thing I like best about Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy is its passionate anti-authoritarianism.

"anti-authoritarianism" is an anti-concept. Rand argues for proper authority given to government. It is much more limited than what exists today, but she honors that proper authority as necessary to civilized society. She is NOT an anarchist, which is where "anti-authoritarianism" might lead you.

[Inspector]

Solange,

It is useful to use the "quote" function when quoting, rather than italic, because it is entirely clear not only that you are quoting, but also who you are quoting.

From Wiki:

It's still not clear. If you mean to say that you're using a non-omnipotent definition for "God," then just say that.

Who said anything about the Christian God? I thought Peikoff was talking about agnostics of all faiths.

In the parts where he was positing that "God" is false, rather than arbitrary, he was referring to the omnipotent (and therefore contradictory), Christian God.

I didn't address it yet. This was my first comment on it. I am addressing the issue of whether Peikoff was wrong to call agnositics cowards.

I didn't say you had addressed it. I said that it had been addressed, and thus your question was already answered. Essential to the argument of whether agnostics are cowards is the argument of whether they are wrong. And essential to that argument is the status of arbitrary claims of things like space gremlins.

I believe I said exactly that: agnostics generally view claims of God as arbitrary and therefore dismiss them out of hand.

Here is the issue:

ag‧nos‧tic  /ægˈnɒstɪk/

�“noun

1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

(by no means the be-all end-all definition, but it will do, I think)

Peikoff's position is that these issues are most certainly not unknowable. We know that claims of "God" are invalid.

Should? I am not following you.

Should. Ought to. I am indicating what I think it would be in your interest to do. I am pointing out the best course of action. If you're unclear on exactly what Peikoff's position is about the status of arbitrary claims, then it would be best to brush up on it.

As I am new here and don't know the lay of the land yet, may I ask you if your name of "Inspector" indicates you are an official here and your position is to monitor what others write?

The moderator status of board users is indicated below their name.

If not, and if I am not violating any of the rules of this Forum by thinking independently, then I think I will be the judge of what I should or should not brush up on or post.

Well!

I am so terribly vexed! I had so hoped you would utterly suspend your judgment and interpret my suggestion as a command, like one of those from this God-thing that you're so keen on arguing has some existence (such that people have an excuse for not utterly rejecting claims of its existence).

The single thing I like best about Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy is its passionate anti-authoritarianism.

You might want to re-think where the line is between "anti-authoritarianism" and being an ass.

The point is that I wasn't being "authoritarian" in any way, so your comments were just plain rude.

Edited November 21, 2006 by Inspector

[KendallJ]

I believe I said exactly that: agnostics generally view claims of God as arbitrary and therefore dismiss them out of hand.

hmm. What exactly do you think is the difference between atheism and agnosticism? Wether they dismiss any particular (which is what "generally" would indicate as apposed to "all") claim is irrelevant, because Agnosticism leaves open the possiblity that a future claim will not be arbitrary. Atheism doesn't. Atheism rejects ALL claims of God as arbitrary.

[Inspector]

"anti-authoritarianism" is an anti-concept. Rand argues for proper authority given to government. It is much more limited than what exists today, but she honors that proper authority as necessary to civilized society. She is NOT an anarchist, which is where "anti-authoritarianism" might lead you.

Thank you, Kendall, that is what I was trying to get at. Well said.