A Conversation with Jason Petersen, Part 2

This is a continuation of my conversation with Jason Petersen at his website "Answers for Hope." Our exchange at that website is shown in the block (indented) paragraphs with light blue or pink background, prefaced by our names, my comments in italics. 

Karen: You have the chance to prove your worldview IS the superior one, and to actually prove the Christian god. Are you going to take that chance? In fact, I think you could submit the test results to the James Randi Foundation, and claim the $1 million prize.”  

Jason: Prove according to what standard? James Randi can’t account for any concept of proof in his worldview. Further, atheism necessarily leads to relativism and skepticism. James Randi certainly isn’t the standard by which proofs are measured. If atheism is true, skepticism is all there is and nothing can be ultimately proven.

Doing such a test has nothing to do with atheism or relativism. It has all to do with making the case about presuppositionalism's central claims, and determining if it can make predictions about reality.

 

Who's talking about standards here? Asking for standards is a red herring. This is the processing of data! It doesn't have to be measured by James Randi. Petersen could process the data and then have a neutral source validate it. In that way, no one could accuse him of bias. Doesn't Jason want to prove his god, or at the very least that "redeemed reasoning" is advantageous? If his god is all-powerful and omniscient, he should be guiding these results, so by his faith he should have no concern over "standards" any way. And if the James Randi Foundation confirmed his data, such actions speak louder than words, and may make James Randi reconsider his position in Petersen's favor.

Karen:  “Dogmatic: to rigidly assert, authoritarian, doctrinaire, unbending. You do realize this is different than reasonable discourse or dialogue, since they involve two-way communication? And this goes hand in hand with your non-admission that you can’t be wrong. Because if there can be no objection, then your “philosophy” is unfalsifiable, rendering it without value (again).”

Jason: Spare me. Earlier, your comment involved exposing my “hidden agenda” by highlighting the “fact” that I “secretly” start with scripture. This portion shows that you are well aware and were intending to misrepresent me. That is dishonest, but it is, on the other hand, convenient. This is because it makes it easier to highlight the repulsive dishonesty behind your approach that you have taken when you came here. You then talk about how dogmatism is different than reasonable dialogue; however, I recall you making it clear that you do not wish to address the problem of skepticism. Rather, you defend Alex’s approach of sticking his head in the sand while pretending that the problem doesn’t exist. This, of course, is not a rational approach, and, therefore, leaves you in no position to judge whether or not dogmatism is reasonable or rational.

"Spare me?" Are not those terms ("to rigidly assert, authoritarian, doctrinaire, unbending") for what dogmatism means? Or does Petersen employ a definition of convenience-to-presuppositionalism like he does everything else? Or does he not like it?

I am now going to start calling Presuppositional Apologetics by a name I thought it should be called given the behavior of presuppositionalists during debate, as this is exactly how Petersen is treating our conversation at this time. Condescensional Apologetics.

Peterson confirmed that "he could not be wrong." That makes his presuppositional approach unfalsifiable, because there can be no objection to it. He validates the unfalsifiability by saying I "am in no position to judge" (i.e., I cannot make any objection).  I did suggest a possible positive way it could be tested, and he even responded in the negative, saying that "I didn't 'get' it."

An unfalsifiable theory makes no predictions. There’s nothing you could ever observe that would be inconsistent with it. In other words, the world where the theory is true appears exactly identical to the world where the theory is false. The theory tells you nothing about the world, and nothing in the world tells you about the theory. So, there is no reason to believe. (George Locke)

Petersen's position is that "he can't be wrong" and that no matter what argument is provided in response to skepticism, it is insufficient. The ONLY answer is "the first principle of revelation" through accepting that Christianity is true. Otherwise, the non-believer is sticking their head in the sand and avoiding answering his questions, since EVERY answer isn't an answer. If they don't grant his principle, they are "pretending the problem of skepticism doesn't exist" (which is "repulsively dishonest"). On the other hand, Petersen can proudly proclaim he is answering the non-believer's questions even if he assiduously avoids them in defending his Christian position. So who exactly is dishonest here?

Karen: “And as I said previously, you cannot back up arguments by “dogmatic assertions.” That does not back up anything, unless you can validate your assertions through evidence or proof, which you say you won’t do. Revelation is NOT proof, since revelations are subject to interpretation which cannot be verified as correct.”

Jason: I have not been making “dogmatic assertions.” I have supported every point I have made–dogmatically.

Jason, you're kidding, right? This is a joke? Getting a little circular, or is this another special pleading circle? No you did NOT support every point you've made, this is not about the "problem of skepticism" because you've just admitted ("Such a situation has nothing to do with IQ tests") it has no bearing on the non-believer's intelligence (their ability to use reason and logic) and that no matter what argument or evidence is presented, there is no way that you can be contradicted, your propositions can make no predictions, and even if you're wrong YOU will never find out because you have closed yourself off from any correction.

Jason: You then ask for “evidence” or “proof.” Certainly, I can provide you evidence that you know that God exists:

You repeatedly claim that the problem of skepticism doesn’t have to be solved because it is not pragmatic.

I did not say "it did not have to be solved." I asked what the practical applications would be for resolving the problem, or would resolving them be of benefit in real life, or a detectable deficiency that would be removed, that I'd otherwise be denied for not accepting your belief.      "Practical application" is not a claim for pragmatic philosophy. It's a very simple question. It can be put into an hypothesis: If the problem of skepticism is solved, and is applied to reality, every day navigations through life would be (better, the same, or worse)?  

Is asking "if it is solved" the same as "it doesn't have to be solved"? I could just as easily make a claim here that Petersen is misrepresenting me in "repulsive lies."

I may have also stated I would not grant his need for an accounting until he accounted for his god. Not granting Petersen's requirement for "resolving skepticism" is not the same as saying it doesn't need to be solved.

Jason: Even though you do not wish to solve the problem of skepticism you go on to accuse presuppositionalists of being out of touch with reality. This, of course, flies in the fact of your assertion that you can ignore the problem of skepticism, after all, one can simply ask you, “How do you know?” You then would have to assert, in order to be consistent with your position, that it is not pragmatic to ask such questions.

I believe our conversation has certified the irony of that cartoon. As noted, because I asked about "practical applications" Petersen decided that I was a "complete" pragmatist. And then he returned to his "every answer is not an answer (except my non-answers)" script, secure in his presuppositionalist bubble, to demand that I account for everything, which somehow equals proof in his god.

Jason: However, in order to determine what is pragmatic you must be able to account for knowledge and prescriptive standards and concepts. Pragmatism is unable to do so because it is not able to solve the problem of skepticism. Yet you continue to press on anyway to argue with me even though you have no interest in solving the problem of skepticism.

Yes, and I could answer those questions (like Alex Botten did), but Petersen has no interest in my answers, either. I've covered that already.

Jason: This means that you are not rational, rather, you are emotionally-driven by what is convenient. Even though you are not able or willing to account for truth, knowledge, morals, purpose, etc, you live as if these things really do matter despite your repudiation of them.(truth and knowledge) This involves borrowing capital from the Christian worldview. Thus, we have evidence that you know that God exists.

Even if I could provide a detailed accounting for these things, they would not be acceptable to Petersen. So, I'm going to ask him to answer these questions concerning the Christian worldview, without resorting to stretched biblical interpretation or  "God says so/does it so I don't have to explain it":

--  Please give a detailed internal critique of Christian worldview.

--  Explain the impossibility of the contrary.

--  Explain how you receive your revelation and know it is the correct one.

--  Explain how you know you have the right god (the Calvinist one?).

--  How does "God" prevent infinite regress?

--  How do you account for your god?

--  Where specifically does the bible give any specific insight or instruction on circularity, validation of one’s reasoning, proper construction of argument, or the validity of the senses, etc. (or is it just your interpretation of biblical verses)?

I'll be waiting. ;).

Jason: You may say “Oh, but I am an atheist. I lack beliefs in gods.” What are we to believe? Your statement that you lack belief in gods or the actions that clearly show that you have abandoned atheism and have embraced Christian presuppositions to argue with me? The choice is obvious.

If I've "embraced Christian presuppositions" to argue with Petersen, why is there a "choice"? According to him, there really is no choice, since he claims he cannot be wrong. If it IS a choice, it's basically a false choice, because he cannot accept alternative world views. So as this is a loaded question, I have no obligation to answer it.

Jason: You then attempt to once again assert that interpretations of revelation is subjective. The truth value of revelation from God through scripture is not dependent on the interpretation of the individual. Revelation of God through scripture is objective and the Holy Spirit is the witness of all Christians. If you say that revelation of God through scripture is subjective, then you are using a different definition of revelation than what I am using, which would include the central doctrines of Christianity that no Christian will disagree on.

One of the questions I had for Petersen when he claimed "I borrowed from the Christian worldview" was "explain how you receive your revelation and know it is the correct one."

This is an important question, because the current group of presuppositionalists know they can't go the circular special pleading route on verifying revelation because it would sound so preposterous (..."I know it's been revealed to me in a way I can be certain because it's been revealed to me in a way I can be certain").

Well known presuppositional apologist and author John Frame wrote concerning how revelation is received, that "We know without knowing how we know." (Presuppositional Apologetics, An Introduction) Sye Ten Bruggencate has been heard to say "I don't know how God does it, he just makes us know". So Petersen has no way to verify his revelation. Therefore I have no reason to accept Petersen's claims because he cannot trust his revelation.

On top of that, Calvinist doctrine asserts that god has two wills, a revealed one and a secretive one only he knows. On page 173 of the book "Always Ready" Gregory Bahnsen states that God can "withhold knowledge." This means that Calvinists have no reason to trust the Bible, because God can do "as he pleases" (Psalm 115:3 and 135:6) altering reality or turning back time for some "greater good" that is unknown to Christians.

Stating that there are "central doctrines of Christianity that no Christian will disagree on" is almost laughable. Triune god? Unitarians, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons get a different "objective revelation" on this central doctrine. Inerrancy and divine inspiration of the Bible? Lutherans are split on their "objective revelation" of this central doctrine. Why is Petersen a "Clarkian" if revelation is so objective? There should neither be VanTilian or Clarkian if revelation was objective. As I stated earlier "The issue with resolving differing interpretations is that they are often not resolved, which is the reason for so many denominations of Christianity. Not only are they not resolved, but there are often disputes with regard to who is a "real" Christian and who is not, with no working definition for how non-believers can make that distinction."

Karen: “That’s why I don’t debate pre-sups:”

Jason: Oh, then what are you doing here? And why are you considering writing a blog post about the debate that YOU started? Perhaps it is because you can’t leave presuppositional apologetics alone. It haunts you that you can’t come up with a rational response to it, so you, like Alex will stick your head in the sand as if the problem of skepticism doesn’t exist. This seems to be a more fitting explanation of this statement. If you “don’t debate” presuppositionalists, then I suggest that you stop talking to me lest you make yourself into a liar about this fact too.

Jason, I have been following presuppositionalism because I find it interesting given my background, and the other "God" arguments require extensive knowledge and background in biology/geology (creationism) and physics (cosmology) which I do not have. I like to test my counter-arguments out to see what response I get so I can refine the counter-argument further. I do not consider this a debate. The debates I'm talking about are the more formal ones such as you and Alex Botten.

I do have a rational response for it, but in understanding your triumphalism and the nature of this argument, I fully expect you to make claims that I don't understand or don't have an answer (or in your case, to put words in my mouth that I'm "haunted" or am lying), that goes with the territory. "Haunted" is an intriguing term to use, however, since so many atheists are agreeing presuppositionalism as an argument is dead.

Karen: “(1) You can’t prove god, and since you know you can’t you prefer to assert him a priori in an unproven premise which you insist is an axiom;”

Jason: The God of Christianity cannot be arrived at through reason or sense perception alone. While we can appeal to these things and give good reasons to think that God exists, given good reason or evidence of anything doesn’t necessarily mean that the proposition you are arguing for is true. Truth is independent of subjective reasoning and evidence. We can certainly find evidence for things that are false such as:

1.) Santa Claus-A child gets presents every Christmas and cookies are devoured.

2.) The earth is flat-There was a time where scientists thought the earth is flat.

3.) An aether-filled universe-Scientists at one time were convinced that they almost had the universe figured out, but Einstein came and crashed the party.

I have given very compelling evidence of God on various articles on this website; however, that does not absolutely prove that God exists. All claims of truth are independent of the amount of evidence for that truth. Just because there was no known evidence that the earth is round years ago doesn’t mean that the earth was flat at that time.

I am not sure what Petersen is getting at here. All I can say is, based on what he's just said, we both could be wrong. Scientific inquiry discovers things to be false which we thought for many years were true, and vice versa (and all those which had formerly supernatural causes were found to be natural, without exception). I'm not trying to claim a monopoly on the truth, and he is free to choose to believe whatever way he wants to believe. Jason, just please don't insist I must believe the same way you do.

Another reason I decided to follow presuppositionalism was the "outsider test." There are several Christians on YouTube who think presuppositionalism is a poor argument. Putting myself in the place of a Christian (and speaking with my Christian friends about what they thought) I know I would not like this argument even if I was a Christian, and I would not use it as a Christian, as I find it offensive, and believe it does more damage to Christian evangelizing than it does to help.

Jason: Further, since you are content to ignore the problem of skepticism, you have to borrow from my worldview to assert that I have “no evidence” or that the axiom of revelation is an “unproven premise.” This is inaccurate by the way. It is an axiom, a first principle if you will. Of course, we still haven’t heard what your starting point is. Without one, you remain stuck in a world where nothing can truly be proven. Of course, you will not argue consistently with this fact because you care more about coming up with excuses to not believe in the God you know exists than you care about being rational.

I'm sorry, Jason. Your "first principle" axiom is not by definition an axiom. An axiom is self-evident and does not require proof, while yours clearly does. There's a lot of disagreement on the position in your axiom that your particular god exists. You can dogmatically insist that your god exists all you want, but that does not constitute proof, nor makes it true.

 

And again, when you say I'm coming up with excuses to not believe in the God you know exists, you're not only trying to put words in my mouth, but by saying I care more about that than I care about being rational, you're equivocating again between "irrational in debate versus irrational in reality."   

Karen: “(2) you assert you cannot be wrong (making your philosophy irrelevant with its unfalsifiability)”

Jason: This is a terrible objection. If what you perceive as “unfalsifiability” makes a proposition wrong or unjustifiable, then truth itself is unjustifiable. This is because truth cannot by definition be falsified. You just, once again, showed that your worldview can’t account for knowledge. Perhaps this is why you try so hard to ignore philosophical problems such as the problem of skepticism.

"Terrible objection"--more ad hom. Besides the fact this is in error. Unfalsifiable claims cannot be proven true OR false, so "justification" as Petersen describes it is meaningless.

The point is, it makes sense to say things like "X is true" or "X is false." But when we start talking about "Truth" by itself, we're not really making any sense. If by "truth" we mean, "true propositions", then now we're on to something, but only if we're very clear in what we really mean. Petersen cannot be clear in what he means since he cannot validate his propositions. Petersen told me throughout this that I am ignoring philosophical problems and accused me multiple times of lying. Yet he has made this claim about "the problem of skepticism" multiple times in the same way, misrepresenting me.

Karen: “(3) you can’t show any value to your worldview relative to “skepticism” or rather, any one that disagrees with your beliefs.”

Jason: The problem is that you are simply unwilling to accept my answer. I have shown(very clearly) how being able to solve the problem of skepticism has great value, even pragmatically. If you would like more, Christianity is the only worldview that can account for the law of non contradiction. If the law of non contradiction cannot be accounted for, then all things are unintelligible.

Since it appears that the "problem of skepticism" is a deficiency for the non-believer, what is the benefit of having the deficiency removed?  None.  Has Petersen shown that solving the problem of skepticism has a demonstrable value or merit?  No.  Does it measurably boost one's IQ or reasoning capability? No. Will it help a person improve their navigation through life in any detectable way? No. Would a group of Christians have higher IQs and reasoning capabilities than a group of non-believers? No.

Atheists unwilling to answer? It works both ways. In their debate, Alex Botten asked Petersen at least five times about the practicality of "having a first principle" in real life. When he said he'd move on because he wasn't getting an answer, Petersen said, "Just because I gave you an answer you didn't like doesn't mean I didn't give you an answer....but I gave you an answer." Alex Botten DID answer Petersen's questions. Can Alex make the same excuse about Petersen, or is it just another double standard where Peterson's answers are acceptable but Botten's aren't?

"If the law of non-contradiction cannot be accounted for, then all things are unintelligible"...back to "irrationality in debate versus irrationality in reality" again. If all things are unintelligible for me, then there could be no conversation here. 

Karen: “I would not grant the need for “first principles” until you demonstrated your premise. In other words, I’m not going to grant an accounting for my worldview until you account for your god. I think that’s a fair exchange. But we’re not going to get anywhere, and I bet you know why!”

Jason: This is a juvenile approach. We can’t even begin to discuss the validity and merits of our worldviews, nor can we talk about the existence of God until you reveal your first principle. You are hiding your first principle, and I bet I know why. It is because you know that as soon as you reveal it it will be torn to shreds.

Juvenile? MORE ad hom. Is that all you have, Jason? In the third post of a written debate between Russell Glasser of The Atheist Experience and Stephen Feinstein on presuppositionalism, Glasser listed just this as points each party should agree on, and Deacon Duncan of the blog "Evangelical Realism" stated it thus: "Pastor Feinstein’s response, by contrast, is filled with vague but triumphant generalities and assertions, not to mention a repetition of the exact same double standard as Russell accused him of at the very beginning of his third post. He insists that Russell “account for” the existence of reality and logic, but denies that Christians need to “account for” God’s existence in the same way. Russell’s axioms have to be contingent on some kind of superstitious precondition, but Pastor Feinstein’s assumption—God—does not."

"...Torn to shreds"--Talk is cheap! Petersen thinks very, very highly of himself. I think because he wants me to go first, and then he's going to assert there can be no objections, along with more ad hom, and declarations I can't answer his questions, and then withhold his "accounting" for his god, because he knows he doesn't have one, as he uses the same double standard as Pastor Feinstein. And then (like Feinstein) declares victory over the course of the conversation, because one-up-manship is much more important than giving positive reasons to believe. Yes, Matthew4Nineteen told me he would tear me to shreds too, if I came into a Biblethumpingwingnut hangout....where they control the moderation, since he can't do it in a fair forum.

Karen: “At around minute 45 of the debate, you told Losoyo you’d only last for an hour, that you weren’t feeling well.”

Jason: Right. This is because I was not feeling well.

Karen: “Losoyo asked Alex if he would stay, and he stated he’d be perfectly happy to continue. If Alex was on such a roller coaster, why would he tell the moderator he’d be happy to continue the debate….while you wanted to quit at the hour.”

Jason: We already agreed to the one-hour time frame. Alex would be “happy to continue” but that would involve avoiding every question that I ask and then attempting to answer a question by getting me to answer the very question that I asked. If you think he was wanting to have a rational discussion with me, you can begin by explaining to me why he attempted to avoid every point of contention between us such as the problem of skepticism. Alex was happy to stay and ask questions, but he certainly was not happy to stay and answer any of mine.

As noted above, when he (Botten) said he'd move on because he wasn't getting an answer, Petersen said, "Just because I gave you an answer you didn't like doesn't mean I didn't give you an answer....but I gave you an answer."

So AGAIN, is Petersen saying his answers are acceptable while Botten's are not? Petersen's statement "Alex would be 'happy to continue' but that would involve avoiding every question that I ask and then attempting to answer a question by getting me to answer the very question that I asked" does not follow. Alex saying he would be happy to continue has nothing to do with how Petersen perceived him to be answering his questions. It has to do with Alex himself. Petersen not only puts words in others' mouths (as evidenced by this discourse) but appears to be trying to project his own personal feelings unto others, when he makes such statements.

*********

To conclude, I was interested in how Petersen would respond to questions concerning the merits of his highly vaunted "first principle" in its application to reality, to every day life.   I think the answer to that question has been fully affirmed:  there are none.

Update 4/19/2014:  In reviewing a blog by presuppositionalist Surfer Brendan,  I found a comment from someone by the name of Bas Van Gorkum who gives an excellent analogy that also supports my "IQ" argument.  He asked Brendan (re-worded for efficiency):  If you were a teacher and asked your class to perform an educational task which involved logic and reason, and all the students completed the task successfully, would you give the theist students an "A," but give the atheist students a "D" because as atheists they could not account for their logic and reason (and therefore their reasoning was viciously circular)?  Brendan responded NO, because "presuppositionalists don't argue that atheists can't know anything." (But how often have we heard them argue just that!)  Bas Van Gorkum answered "I then take it that by doing so you agree that a line of argumentation, given by a human, that is from start to end logically consistent, doesn't win or lose any logical validity due to the worldview of that human."   Case closed.  Thank you, Bas Van Gorkum, whoever you are.

Petersen continually impugned my honesty. But if he and all the other presuppositionalists were honest, their approach to this would be a far different one. They would say that their god is the creator of reason and logic, and that the non-believer is using what their god created, but failing to give credit for it to their god. Instead, they have contorted it into something like: if you don't believe in our god you cannot reason properly, because our god created reason and logic (yet all the while your reasoning seems to work as well as if not better than that of the Christian).

This might be called "evangelizing by insult" (condescensional apologetics). It brings to mind that old adage about how you can attract a lot more flies with honey than you can with vinegar. If the presuppositionalists think using vinegar will bring them converts, then all I can say is "knock yourselves out!"