A Conversation with Jason Petersen, Part 3

MULTIPLE FACE PALMS!!!!

 

On April 30, Jason Petersen answered my video and two part blog where I responded to our conversation in the comment section of his blog. He quoted both of our previous commentaries quite a bit so this redundancy added to the huge word count and length of his post (24,000+ words).

But I suppose he thought he'd "Gish gallop" me back for "Gish galloping" him. I must say, his post was of tremendous help to me in understanding presuppositionalism, as he "answered" some questions I have seen posed by other atheists for which I've never seen a direct responses. Although throughout, I had multiple face-palming (hence the subtitle), rolling-my-eyes laughter at some of them. I thought I'd concentrate on those which expose the flaws of his presuppositional methodology the most..

1. Unfalsifiable arguments are not rational. Petersen declared at one point "if the foundation of her argument is refuted, her examples fall along with it..." Without realizing it, Petersen's proud affirmation of his "not being wrong" obliterated the foundation of his 24,000-word novella, because he repeatedly made statements confirming that his argument was unfalsifiable (and his examples fell with them):

[Petersen] I would think that anything that is ultimately true would be unfalsifiable. You know, because the proposition, Christianity, is already true.

***

“[Karen] So, Jason, are you going to say it, then? Just say it at the beginning when you present your argument “My worldview is the only true one and I can’t be wrong….I am very clear that this is my position.”

[Petersen] There is no need for further clarification, because I have said it numerous times to you and others. Christianity is the only worldview that can be true, all other worldviews are false. Any other starting point besides revelation of God through scripture will reduce to skepticism. There is no other worldview other than Christianity that is able to provide a stable epistemology. There is no other worldview other than Christianity that is rational. Christianity is the only worldview that is true, and I cannot be wrong about it. I think I have, once again, spelled this out to Karen. ***

"...[Karen] 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.”

[Petersen] This again, shows that Karen is an empiricist, for she assumes that we must be able to make predictions in order for any knowledge to be justified. This is an assertion that Karen has not bothered to support. If all propositions must be testable in order for them to be justified, then one must ask how we would test whether or not a justified proposition makes a proposition justified? Certainly, Karen cannot due so, and ends up contradicting herself again. All first principles are ultimately indemonstrable, however, they can be tested for logical consistency. This is also true of the Christian worldview, but no axiom can be empirically tested. They can only be tested logically.

***

[Petersen] If I presuppose revelation of God through scripture and I say that I can’t be wrong about it, what am I saying? I am saying that I cannot be wrong about God’s revelation through scripture. The two statements are equivalent.

It seems that Karen is stuck on the fact that I will not accept any secular alternative to the Christian worldview. She is correct.

Right, it is very telling. I am open about my position, but Karen is not open about her’s.

Petersen tries to dance around the fact his argument cannot be tested by claiming the testing must be "justified." But that is NOT the issue here: his argument provides no good reason to believe because it can neither be proven true NOR false since it has been insulated from objection in being unfalsified.

Therefore, the only rational position is to accept that his argument is not true. Even if his argument was perfectly internally consistent, it is not a rational argument because it is not testable and cannot make predictions.

2. KEEPING the argument unfalsifiable.  Petersen took the position that there are  benefits to "redeemed reasoning" as follows:

I could of course, name other benefits such as: salvation, fellowship with Christ, purpose in life, a solid foundation for moral values, logical consistency, fellowship with other believers, a happier life, and of course, the ability to live a life that is not a delusion. There is more, but I can stop here.

And can any of these be tested, or proven? I think there may be studies that indicate that those more religious are happier, but if I recognized that, Petersen would have to recognize a recent meta-study that show those more religious are less intelligent (which puts "logical consistency" in doubt). He cannot exempt his source from the way he disparaged mine. The rest are faith claims or subjective opinion, since Petersen cannot or is unwilling to test them to see if they are true: salvation, fellowship with Christ, purpose in life, etc.

3. Revelations cannot be verified and are inconsistent. Earlier in my blog post, I spoke of a problem with presuppositionalists in the verification of their revelation, because it would be blatantly circular and appear ridiculous to say "The way I know it's been revealed to me in a way I can be certain is because it's been revealed to me in a way I can be certain."

So what did Petersen do? Exactly that. He gave a Bible verse to verify his biblical revelation (Ephesians)...in other words, a circular argument. He also interpreted my wanting "verification" as "being able to trust the Bible." What I am asking is how he checks or verifies that the specific revelation he is receiving is correct (as opposed to revelations received by others which may differ).(Facepalm!)

Independent verification of revelation means that not only do we have no way of knowing Petersen's revelation is the right one, we have no way to independently authenticate or check that he actually received that revelation, no way to distinguish whether it's his imagination, a delusion, or the source of the "revelation." Even if supernatural entities existed which could deliver such revelations, how do we know it's his god? It could be an evil spirit deceiving him. We have no way to confirm this. There's also a problem with accepting the revelation itself, as explained here.

Christians need to recognize once and for all that the claim to have secured knowledge by means of “revelations” only indicates that they have no epistemology proper to speak of. Claiming to know something “by revelation” means that the person making such a claim cannot identify the steps by which he came to the “knowledge” that he claims to possess. Presumably he “receives” knowledge without performing any mental steps which he could identify in the first place. On the theist’s view, knowledge is not a product of mental activity performed by the knower, but a deliverance from a supernatural realm which he passively receives by some means which the knower himself cannot identify, understand or articulate. The claim “It was revealed to me” really means that the believer wants to ignore penetrating epistemological inquiry and expects his audience to accept his claims without rational basis and without regard for the need to tie knowledge objectively to reality. As such, the retreat to revelation is an outright assault on reason and the abilities of the human mind.

Petersen needs to ask himself: wouldn't a god who was lying to you tell you he was incapable of lying? I am trying to find out how he verifies that this is the correct revelation, not how he can "trust scripture." He claims he destroys non-believers' epistemologies through a methodology (revelation) which is itself "an assault on reason and the abilities of the human mind." His "solution to the problem of skepticism" was on the same level: passive deliverance from the supernatural without identification of any actual solution.

He also disparaged many of my sources, including Dawson Bethrick and The New Convenant Group, while giving me links to carm.org. to prove some of his points. (Face palm)

4. Accounting for God. "If God is the ultimate authority, there is no need to account for him." (Face palm!). Yet I'm supposed to account for "the problem of skepticism." He even says "If Karen is not obligated to account for anything according to her logic, then why should I have to account for God according to her logic?" Well, we're even then. I don't have to account for "the problem of skepticism" and he doesn't have to account for his god. Case closed--although the "unfalsifiable" problem has sealed the deal for Petersen.

5. Duh, God did it! What is Petersen's solution to "the problem of skepticism" he continually harped on about non-believers not being able to solve?

“How does “God” prevent infinite regress?”

God is not subject to any other authority, so he stops the infinite regress, for there is no authority that is binding on God. (Romans 9, 1 Samuel 2:3)

***

Karen would rather be irrational and ignore the problem of skepticism, because if she actually tried to solve the problem of skepticism, it would remind her that Christianity is true.

(Face palm!) Fallacy of appeal to authority, and an obvious lack of explanatory power. And another super-stretched interpretation of a Bible verse. It's as if Petersen (and the other pre-sups) throw out whatever verses they can find because they have nothing else to offer.   Mathew Steele has likened such answers as Petersen's to a teacher who gives a multiple-choice test, and when a student gets an answer wrong and asks the teacher to explain, the teacher only says, this is the right answer, and nothing else, never explaining why the correct answer is correct, or why the student's answer is wrong.

Petersen later claims that I'd be reminded Christianity is true if I tried to solve the problem of skepticism. No, it would remind me that attributing a solution to the supernatural is not a viable answer.

The "problem of skepticism" is a dilemma, a "mystery." Petersen insists he has an answer by appealing to a greater mystery, the supernatural. He therefore affirms he has not resolved the "problem of skepticism" either.

6. Using my answer for his answer. Petersen initially claimed that I did not define general revelation correctly, because I said general revelation was biblical interpretation. So I asked him where he got support for his general revelation--wasn't...it...the...bible? His response:

“[Karen] So, where do Christians such as Petersen get support for general revelation? How do they know there IS general or natural revelation?”

[Petersen] Notice that Karen bypasses the fact that she defined general revelation incorrectly. How do I know that there is general or natural revelation? The Bible says so.(Romans 1:18-32)

(FACE PALM!)

 

7. No True Scotsman. I told Petersen on inconsistent revelations that there are numerous Christian denominations who cannot agree on who is a 'real Christian'" with no working definition on how to distinguish them. So what does Petersen say when I tell him Unitarians, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons don't agree on a triune god, a central doctrine of Christianity? "Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons are not Christians. This is a rather pathetic error on Karen’s part."  Apparently Unitarians are still Christian "enough" for him.  (Face palm!) 

 

Petersen stated over 20 times (this time) that I was dishonest or a liar. He uses an argument replete with his own definitions of terms (particularly those of "worldviews") to make claims about me--which, because his argument has been shown as untested and unproven by his own admission, shows he is lying about me. Turn about is fair play. In my next post, I will document most of his lies along with some commentary explaining them.