Irrational Exuberance

Ydemoc asked some well thought out questions, in such a kind manner they do warrant a response.

>>the truths identified by Objectivist axioms.

Yes, there are self evident truths. As a mere example, even our founding fathers believed this also as "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" The rights are axiomatic. There is a Biblical necessity to deny the fundamental point of moral neutrality here. What failed is southern men thinking that slaves are not people, but property. Their axioms were simply wrong. It was also "self evident" that the world was flat at a time in history, true? So how do we get through axioms that are incorrect? More, correct, axioms and that is the purpose of TAG. 

These points are not flip answers but my attempt to flesh them out in my very limited philosophical education. But, I do not claim to be a well versed philosopher, but an exegete in Scripture. At least that is my goal and focus.

>>For "axiom of existence".  So you presuppose that you exist.
>>For "axiom of identity". You presuppose that you are you.

You're arguing presuppositionally to me here. How can I, or want to, counter that? I guess I could pose that you could be a winged green Spirit in a dream state though, but that is not my argument and just the point that axioms change. Yes, we're creatures. Self-consciousness creatures. How is that accounted for?

"The problem here is that Dr. Copan, like many critics of presuppositionalism, confuses a presupposition of an argument with a premise of an argument." ~~Dr. James N. Anderson

As Anderson pointed out, "the argument identifies a performative inconsistency in the one who doubts his own existence. (In a sense, all transcendental arguments aim to identify a performative inconsistency in the skeptic’s position.) Does it presuppose its conclusion? Yes, in the sense that the argument can be mentally entertained by a person only if that person exists — but that’s precisely the point. This sort of non-trivial ‘presupposing’ is necessarily involved in all transcendental arguments that purport to identify a necessary precondition of rational thought...Once you see that Descartes’ argument doesn’t beg the question in any objectionable fashion, it ought to be clear that neither does the presuppositionalist’s argument."

>>since presupposing is a conscious activity (there’s the axiom of consciousness)

Can you just claim to be consciousness as an axiom without any background, or explanation, (account) behind it? It is the thrust of the point we're trying to make here, after all. One could say that life is an axiom, but that gets us nowhere.

This specific point has been addressed in a past post:

"In such a naturalistic, materialistic conception of the universe, all must be accounted for in terms of the material interaction of atoms. With that worldview, it forces us to view ourselves as simply matter-in-motion. How can matter be self-aware? Are rocks self aware? Trees? Hammers? In fact, what view of the world makes self-awareness intelligible? Slime is certainly not self-aware, which eventually becomes rational, which eventually becomes moral-and all by the evolutionary mechanism of time plus chance?" ~Self Aware

>>This is why they are the preconditions of knowledge (since knowledge is essentially identification of facts.

All facts, or even evidences, are interpreted within a framework of presuppositions though.

"God’s self-revelation in nature and in Scripture informs us of the two-level universe. God is not a fact like other facts in the world. He is the Creator and Establisher of all else. His existence alone makes the universe, and reason, and human experience possible… " ~Greg Bahnsen (Pushing the Antithesis pg.) 124.

What the world views as an "expert authority" is only as good insofar as that "expert" is consistent with what God, the ultimate authority reveals. This is because, as Jesus implicitly taught in Luke 16:31: the facts don't speak for themselves because all facts are interpreted facts.

>>But I find it curious that I don’t often (if at all) come across theists who ask: “How do you know that you are wrong?”

That is because all facts are interpreted facts. So, of course, you believe you're right, but how are you certain you are?

"In fact, that cannot be evidence for God if he is a naturalist, or an atheist. Because according to him its not possible to have evidence for God. If he is in fact an atheist in terms of his views on reality, then all of these things must be reinterpreted so they are regimented, or will conform to, will comport with that man's naturalism, or atheism." ~(bit.ly/stillevidence)

>>We are wrong when we have failed to properly identify a fact of reality. And we have knowledge of being wrong when we take steps that properly identify the error in our thinking. Essentially, we “check our work.” What do we check with? With the same faculty of consciousness we check with reality.

So you reason your reasoning is valid. Got it. So how do you know which reality is the right one?

Someone said a while ago "We find a reality in which God exists, you, on the other hand find a reality where that is not necessarily the case.

You see, in our reality, we can attribute things to God whom we know exists, you cannot. For example, if someone asks if X is "good," we can make this determination by seeing whether or not it comports with God's revealed character according to our reality. You, necessarily have another standard for goodness in your version of reality. Both cannot be "true" at the same time and in the same way.

So when I, for example, say that worshiping idols is bad, and you say that it is not bad, how do you determine which is the correct answer since we appeal to different realities?

How do you know whose reality is the right reality?"

If all facts are interpreted facts, then this type of question makes sense. If you claim there is only one reality, then how do you know you're right about the non-existence of God, or anything, within this reality?  You reason that your reality appears to conform to reality. But you have yet to show the avenue to knowledge.

In quoting Peikoff you bring up a good point. "But if they cannot, how did they ever discover that they were wrong? How can one form such concepts as “mistake” or “error” while wholly ignorant of what is correct?"

It reminds me of another quote. "If we are products of mechanistic and impersonal natural forces in a closed system, then our thoughts and rules of reasoning are also parts of that system. Any check against false conclusions would still be a part of the system which produced the false conclusions." ~Henry W. Middle | March 1st, 2010 | The Foundation of Logic in the Nature of God

So that brings us to that, now famous, question. How do you know?

>>"...If man cannot grasp X, then “non-X” stands for nothing. Fallibility does not make knowledge impossible. Knowledge is what makes possible the discovery of fallibility.” (Leonard Peikoff, “‘Maybe You’re Wrong,’” The Objectivist Forum, April 1981, 8)

X being "God" in that quote makes perfect sense. Again, we're back to the same question, what is your avenue to knowledge? Which reality is right? Atheists claim they cannot grasp "God", then as Peikoff points out, then “non-God” stands for nothing. You KNOW God exists as Peikoff points out, and confirms Scripture, that we are without excuse. Romans 1:18-21

>>So when you ask, “How do I know my reasoning is valid?” the answer is very simple: I check -- much the same your kids probably check their math equations.

So you appeal to a STANDARD that your worldview cannot account for. Unless you are admiting to a purposed and uniform, not random, universe. Would you grant this, that your worldview only allows for time and chance acting on matter, that its just the material universe, that its just random, there is no guidance, there is no governance, no sovereign, no purpose or plan over the universe?

You assert that you "check" but against what? Truth? Reality? Again, we're back to the same question. How do you know? Which "truth"? Which reality? If there is one reality then, one would think there would be only one worldview. So, since that is not the case, which reality? BTW, someday soon there WILL be only one worldview. The Christian worldview. God assured that.

>>Consciousness has a relationship with reality, and it is capable of checking the conclusions it comes to against the facts of reality.

Indeed it does, same with consciences also. How is that? That is why your atheistic worldview comes into question. It accounts for things with "It just is" or "it just works", and would that be sufficient for us explaining God? God just is? Of course not.

>> Would you say that your kids, by checking their results against the facts of reality, are “reasoning in a vicious circle,” Dan? I doubt it.

As stated above, "Once you see that Descartes’ argument doesn’t beg the question in any objectionable fashion, it ought to be clear that neither does the presuppositionalist’s argument."

>>..what would justify appealing to something above, beyond, outside (i.e., to something supernatural) in order to account for the simple fact that I have identified these objects in my field of awareness? What justifies appealing to a supernatural source?

Well that is what your worldview tries to do. Account for things without God. What would justify appealing to something above, beyond, outside of God? God being that source of knowledge, all knowledge, attempting to discount and deny said source has no justification. You're literally getting things backwards here. You account for it with "it just is" and end it there without being able to appeal to real questions that worldviews attempt to address. Christianity adequately explains origins, who we are, where we came from, the meaning of life, and where we're going after we die, all these question a worldview attempts to address. Life's questions. Christianity is epistemologically foundational.

>>Now, how do I know all this? Because there are no rational grounds to doubt it. And how do I know there are no rational grounds on which to doubt it? I checked.

By checking something that has, according to you, "no rational grounds to doubt it", makes it irrational to do so?

That is, at least, consistent to that worldview you hold so tightly to. Irrational Exuberance :7)