Godless Theologians (The Mystery Of Philosophy) Part 1.

This is a dissenting view of epistemology. I'm putting it here since I am a great fan of Ayn Rand but no objectivist. To me she seems like a person of near Freakish genius. But I think the felt need for Bivalent Deductive Exactitude and perhaps the pretence of it has taken the work of one the the ages most amazing geniuses and made her ideas easy to quibble with and criticise.

Outside of epistemology I tend to agree with Rand on most everything in the general and only have some quibbles on the margins. And I think we all owe here a great deal. So I come not as a Randian but hopefully as a friend.

For psycological reasons, and not for any religious faith, I will refer to philosophers as 'Godless Theologians.'
.........................................................................................

An old farmer and a young godless theologian are walking across the fields towards a town. On all sides as far as can be seen the land is unfenced. They come across some cow manure. Still fresh but hardened around the rim.

This is the cause of some excitement. But how can they be sure that it is in fact an example of cow manure?

They feel it. They take a bite out of it. They smell it. They climb up in a tree and see if it looks like cow manure from that angle.

Perhaps it really is an example of cow manure says the Godless theologian struggling to work back through various premises to find a cutely worded argument.

Lucky we didn’t stand in it says the farmer. In this story they were indeed lucky they didn’t stand in it……

The Godless theologian now faces a problem. Since Bivalent deductive logic leads to the infinite regress of premises he must find a way to dogmatically section off the regress. Or if he wants to hide the nature of what he is doing he might write a massive book to convince everyone he has worked out the conclusion he wants by Bivalent Deductive logic.

But everyone knows that this is futile. Since we haven’t even proved that reality isn’t imaginary through this largely worthless methodology.

The Godless theologian is composing words and sentences of his treatise proving the momentous event of the two of them finding the cow manure. He is working backwards so that he can talk conversationally around the subject nudging definitions here and there so that the last string of premises leading up to his eventual conclusion will sound as syllogistic is possible.
…………………………………………………………

The central problem with the way Godless Theology has developed is that the Godless Theologians have confused bivalent deductive exactitude with rightful certainty.

Rightful certainty is not bivalent deductive exactitude. Bivalent deductive exactitude cannot lead to rightful certainty. Rightful certainty can be had without Bivalent deductive exactitude. The two things are not related..
………………………………………………………………….

Consider the farmer and the Godless theologian. Do you feel they have authentic rightful certitude as to the continuing status of the object that they had taken to be cow manure?

If so from whence did they get such certitude. Surely they are unrightfully overconfident. Surely they brazenly or naievely ignore the works of the Bishop Berkeley.

In this world we get rightful certitude not from tendentiously deducing it but from one source and one source only.

That source is CONVERGENCE.

This cannot be proved by deductive bivalent logic but fear not. Since bivalent deductive logic has not been able to prove anything at all it cannot be the standard by which we achieve certitude.
……………………………………………………………………

Post 1

Saturday, April 8, 2006 - 7:44pm

Godless Theologians: (The Mystery Of Philosophy) Part II

As soon as the farmer and the Godless Theologian make it into town they do what every good citizen would do and they alert the media. But in this case word of mouth whips around the small built-up village and within a short time they are being carried on the shoulders of enthusiastic people past cheering crowds. Young Mothers hold their babies up to get a look at the new heroes above the cheering crowds…….

But in all the excitement the young Godless Theologian hasn’t had the time to think and put pen to paper. So he hasn’t gotten his bivalent deductive arguments sorted.

The Godless Theologian has a guilty secret. He is a master of taking inductive arguments labouriously reworking them into very convincing-looking faux-Deductive ones. He knows its a fraud of course.

He uses reams of paper in order to get this done and when anyone looks like they might find out what he’s up to he is in a panic. He spends a very long time ripping up his workings-out into very small shreds of paper before burning them.
………………………………………………………..

In the story is there anything that the Godless Theologian can do to prove further that this was cow manure? Or to put it this way as the crowd carries him on their shoulder and the young single women ( and the others too) eye him lustily, knowing that the press conference will soon be upon him, he is busily trying to get some convincing bivalent deductive argumentation together.

But if he writes a whole book as large as Norman Mailers ‘Ancient Evenings’ can this do anything to increase the level of rightful certitude of the farmer, the Godless Theologian himself, and of public opinion as to whether it was indeed cow manure they found.

I don’t think it can. I think Bi-Valent Deductive Exactitude has been wrongfully confused with Rightfull Certitude and that this has set up a viscious circle in philosophy. Where those who wish to do the right thing have been led down the wrong path and have been made to look foolish. And wherein arguments multiply like weeds. And wherein incorrigible nihilists are made to look good and philisophically with-it.

THE ONLY WAY WE GET RIGHTFUL CERTITUDE IS CONVERGENCE.
…………………………………………………….

Lets put a few things through the convergence test.

Evolution: Without convergence you would have nothing. But we can have some rightful certainty about it. Though we cannot have rightful certitude about excluding some alien intervention somewhere along the line. We cannot really have much confidence in any VIEW of evolution..

The reason we can have some confidence in the general thrust of evolution is that evidence for it converges from all sides and all angles. Any one thing on its own and you would have next to nothing.

The idea that the Universe is expanding and accelerating in its expansion:

It fails the convergence test. We can have no rightfull certitude about this since the theory leans on the theory of red shift alone. What they ought to do is map out all the stars that they can get independent evidence for before they jump to the conclusion of how far that star is away and how fast it is moving. This is a very sloppy effort from those science workers.

The existence of the historical Jesus:

At first blush this is open to question. Since outside the movement there is only Josephus as an independent source. I would say we would have near certitude but not total certitude. However this is one case where recognising that Convergence is the only source and ultimate test of rightfull certitude could inspire some effort to clear up all doubt. Or to conclude that some doubt will likely always remain.

Post 2

Sunday, April 9, 2006 - 1:59am

Graeme, do you really expect people on this website to reply to your arguments? In all honesty, I had to roll my eyes when I read them. Whom do you think you're addressing? You haven't the barest idea of the reasoning behind the Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology. The arguments that you've advanced here aren't worthy of serious comment. If you really want to engage people in a dialogue, you should read the Objectivist literature and make your arguments in reference to it. That way, you would at least acknowledge your familiarity with what you are criticizing. I would suggest at minimum, Objectivism: The Philosphy of Ayn Rand by Peikoff and Rand's Introduction to Objectivism Epistemology.

- Bill

Post 3

Sunday, April 9, 2006 - 3:57am

Bill I have read every word that Ayn Rand ever published and have been a fan of hers for a quarter of a century.

Post 4

Sunday, April 9, 2006 - 7:49am

Lucky we didn’t stand in it says the farmer.

A Cheech and Chong fan, I see? :)

"Good thing we don't step in it!"
"Yah, good thing!"

Post 5

Sunday, April 9, 2006 - 1:08pm

Its an old kids joke really. But this thing I actually didn't make up with Rand in mind. I was thinking of Popper at the time since I had been arguing with someone who was insisting that inductive logic ought to be dumped.

I don't think any tools should be dumped. But this felt need (and the inevitable pretense it causes) that everything needs to be tied together with long strings of bivalent deductive logic..... I think this is a big problem with every philosopher I've ever read.

I don't think it works. I think its a theological undertaking that requires some level of bluff. So I was by no means singling out Rand.

Post 6

Sunday, April 9, 2006 - 5:32pm

Graeme wrote,

Bill I have read every word that Ayn Rand ever published and have been a fan of hers for a quarter of a century.

Well, then, I'm even more astonished by your previous posts, since they reflect a profound misunderstanding of Objectivism's concept of logic. And what is the oxymoron"godless theologican" supposed to mean? You have me baffled.

- Bill

Post 7

Sunday, April 9, 2006 - 6:11pm

And I'm wondering about the potential link between the name "Brant Gaede" and the name "Graeme Bird" ...

Coincidence? I think NOT!

Ed
[gotcha!]

Post 8

Sunday, April 9, 2006 - 6:33pm

I would call them Godless Theologians not for any religious faith that I have. But because I think that trying to prove things through bivalent deductive logic becomes a theological undertaking.

Suppose you go into the field. And you notice all these snide skeptics claiming that nothing can be known in one context, and in another context arguing forcefully and with great apparent certitude for a return to slavery.

But you also notice that skeptical godless theologians, though they claim to outlaw a priori thought or any type of inductive logic, are actually, in practice glaringly useless with the deductive stuff also.

You might then take the view that they are probably wrong in their belief that there is no reality or that the idea that there is a reality cannot be proved (by bivalent deductive logic).

And further you may take the view that they can be proved wrong by BDL. Now this is all understandable but my contention is that it is mistaken. Its mistaken because it assumes that BDL can be useful on its own and I'm saying it can't.

From there one group of people might say. 'Well we can't know anything'. I'm not in that group. I just think that BDL is a useless tool on its own and that we have to retool.

Post 9

Sunday, April 9, 2006 - 7:00pm

Graeme,

Well, then, what is your beef with Objectivism in this regard? Do you attribute an exclusive focus on "bivalent deductive logic" to Objectivism? If not, then why are you raising this issue as a "dissenting" voice? If you are as familiar with Rand's philosophy as you say you are, then surely you know that Objectivism doesn't restrict its use of logic to deduction - that it employes induction as well. So, precisely where do you disagree with its view of logic? The problem that I'm having with your posts is that you haven't bothered to quote anything Rand or other Objectivists have written on epistemology, and to say, "This is what I disagree with, and this is why I disagree with it." Unless you do that, how can you expect us to take you seriously? You write as if Objectivism were a rationalist philosophy that eschewed empiricism, when it is common knowledge that Objectivism rejects both rationalism and empiricism. You can't have knowledge without an empirical base in sensory perception; nor can you have it as un unintegrated, contradictory set of conclusions.

- Bill

Post 10

Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 5:31am