3.4.1(2) Atheism: Objections to Evidentialism

I respond to objections to Evidentialism regarding the use of provisional hypotheses, the alleged self-refuting properties of Evidentialism, the evidential bases of mathematics and logic, and the relation of Evidentialism to Logical Positivism.

Radical Skepticism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_skepticism

Cantor's Original Definition of Set:
http://books.google.com/books?id=W1gNAAAAYAAJ&q=aggregate#v=snippet&q...
Russell's Paradox:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_paradox
ZFC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%E2%80%93Fraenkel_set_theory
Construction of Natural Numbers based on Set Theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_numbers#Constructions_based_on_set_theory

Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being
http://www.amazon.com/Where-Mathematics-Comes-Embodied-Brings/dp/0465037704

Evidentialism References:
Conee, E., & Feldman, R., 2004, Evidentialism: Essays in Epistemology. Clarendon Press.
Poston, T., 2007, Foundational Evidentialism and the Problem of Scatter. Abstracta, 3 (2), 89-106.
Wampler-Doty, M., 2010, Evidentialist Logic. MSc Thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Netherlands. Retrieved from ILLC Publications (Accession Order No. MoL-2010-15).

--

All excerpts used in this video are either copyright-free or covered under "fair use" in Title 17 § 107 of the USC, including:

Vector Attributions:
A huge thanks to Snap2Objects for the many businessmen vectors I use:
http://www.snap2objects.com/freebies/
Business Women:
http://all-silhouettes.com/vectorbusinesswomen/
Christian Cross:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Christian_cross.svg
Islam Star and Crescent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Star_and_Crescent.svg
Hindu Om:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Om.svg
Temperature Gauges:
http://www.snap2objects.com/2011/10/12/12-vector-weather-cast-elements/
Crowds:
http://all-silhouettes.com/vector-people-crowds/

Image Attributions:
Triceratops Skull:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Triceratops2.png
DNA Test:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:05-0339_b.jpg
Psalms Scroll:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Psalms_Scroll.jpg
Moon Landing:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Apollo_15_flag,_rover,_LM,_Irwin.jpg
Natural Groups:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/doom64/5847203863/sizes/l/in/photostream/
Mud:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mud_closeup.jpg
Water:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Water_002.jpg
Fire:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FIRE_01.JPG
Georg Cantor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Georg_Cantor2.jpg
Bertrand Russell:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Russell1907-2.jpg
Ernst Zermelo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ernst_Zermelo.jpeg
Apple:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dark_apple.png
Coffee Cup:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Swl-mugg.jpg
Leaf:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lisc_lipy.jpg
Strobe Ball:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bouncing_ball_strobe_edit.jpg
Rain:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rain_cloud_swifts_creek_0107.jpg
Wet:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Here_comes_rain_again.jpg
Burn:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Burn_2nd_degree_2.jpg
Glass:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Light_through_glass05.jpg
Broken Glass:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Broken_glass,_Belfast,_April_2010.JPG

--

Music:
"Another Day" by The Unordinaries

.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• evidentialism
• evidentialist
• foundationalist
• foundationalism
• rationalism
• rene
• descartes
• wax
• epistemology
• justification
• evidence
• self-refuting
• mathematics
• logic
• provisional
• hypotheses
• working
• assumptions
• logical
• positivism
• abstraction

[RickHanlonII]

Starting at 14:12 you embark on an embarrassing straw-dog argument by reducing the position of the rationalist to a stance that is obviously inferior to the stance you support. I could expand if you like, but for this moment I will just say that no rationalist would ever claim that (x^m)^n=x^(mn) is a self-evident truth. This, combined with how you seem to assert that mathematics should be taught using inductive reasoning, leads me to believe that you simply do not understand higher-level maths.

[Evid3nc3]

@RickHanlonII

I find it bizarre that you think I don't get high-level math since I referenced ZFC and Russel's paradox in the video. FYI, I will soon have a PhD in Computer Science and I grade proofs for a senior-level Data Structures course. My mathematics background covers vector calculus, statistics, and theoretical computer science.

And my best teachers were the ones who both abstracted the intuition for theorems from concrete examples AND validated them with deductive proofs.

[dotyacd]

@Evid3nc3 This is an example of the sort of discussion which I find unproductive. The validity or invalidity of Christianity and faith-without-scientific-evide­nce in general do not rest upon one's ability to grasp mathematics.

[Evid3nc3]

@dotyacd

It actually is relevant to that topic.

Rationalists argue that mathematics is something that is "just true". That type of justification system can and has been used by people like Descartes to argue that God is "just true". If you allow a "just true" type of justification system, all sorts of nonsense, including theism, can leak into your epistemology unchecked.

[richo61]

@BDiegoTube Yes I agree with this about emprical claims.

Self consistency is necessary but not sufficient for establishing reality (truth).

I am 100% in agreement with Evid3nce UNTIL he starts talking about mathematics.

Then he goes too far.

8-)

[magnus56j]

Based on your other videos I can see why you became atheist, because you were taught to believe that God is unloving and unmerciful and that man has more love and mercy than God. Fundamentalism is the worst enemy to Christianity. I can understand where you are getting at though. I was at one point an agnostic, but then I witnessed myrrhing icons in an Orthodox Church and I couldn't explain that with science, so I thought it had to be of God. I think you have to experience God to believe in Him.

[TobiasELee]

roll on, baby brother

[BDiegoTube]

In other words, such an argument boils down to child logic where a toddler stands in front of me and covers his eyes and says "daddy's gone" then opens them and says "daddy's here". Or an ostrich burying its head in the sand. The point is we humans are currently only aware of an incredibly tiny percent of the evidence available, and that awareness itself is flawed on top of that. What is "true" to one being (an alien who knows he exists) is *not true* to others (humans across the galaxy).

[BDiegoTube]

"some things are true but not based on evidence"-this is a paradox and not contradictory. Aliens either exist or don't.One or the other is true. We humans on planet earth don't know, so we can't say either is true.But the aliens (if they exist) do! If they did exist, it would be one of millions of examples where something is true but not based on evidence *available to us humans*. Denying this is actually tantamount to denying skepticism (disbelief based on a *lack of evidence*) and atheism.

[BDiegoTube]

Finally, I'll add that your senses are sometimes wrong, and in specific circumstances, *usually wrong*. In the sensory field of science there are volumes of examples of the former. It leads to people who people sincerely think they see things that they didn't see - and they reinforce their religious beliefs! An example of the latter would be a person who takes LSD one time and becomes convinced of god merely based on what he senses while drugged. Prof. Colavita has a lecture on this science.

[BDiegoTube]

@richo61 This is also wrong. Most religions are self consistent and yet some of them are certainly wrong. Prove to the Chinese their ancestors don't watch over them, or the shamans that nature has no soul. "just true" for a false belief can trivially be made self consistent, in fact ironically it often is. This is the very nature of theists who constantly refine their religious arguments in the belief that the more consistent it is, the *more true* their religion is.

[BDiegoTube]

@richo61 I may be completely misunderstanding your first statement, but if I understood it correctly it is wrong. A computer can be designed without any inputs which produces mathematically significant output - a salt routine for example. You do not need any senses to perform mathematics, I find the assertion frankly bizarre.

[BDiegoTube]

Or rather, I should point out that at its very core, theism implicitly assumes that your senses are in fact sometimes *completely wrong* and *never* 100% reliable. Any assumption that starts with "your senses are sometimes accurate" has already disproven theism. I'm agnostic btw. I believe merely that your senses *may* be accurate - and to the extent it is - it is only valid in the *context* of the known universe (and not the unknown universe or anything beyond, if the latter exists).