A Conversation with Jason Petersen, Part 8

The following is a table which describes many of the fallacies which riddle presuppositional apologetics; in this case, the "Clarkian" apologetic as used by Jason Petersen.  Although most of it applies to "VanTilian" presuppositional apologetics as well.

Fallacy	Fallacy Description	Evidence in  Clarkian PA
Appeal to Authority	Something is true because it's from an authority	The Bible (Biblical verses of God as "ultimate authority")solves the problem of skepticism.  The Bible (Biblical verses) reveal that "all other worldviews are false."
Argument from Omniscience	An arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs or about their knowledge	Best expressed in the Romans 1:18-21 verses that anyone who disbelieves knows (the Christian) god exists, but they suppress the truth.  Using Bible as "omniscient" source, omnisciently revealed, with the revelations omnisciently verified to be true.
Appeal to Ignorance	Opponent's inability to disprove a conclusion Is proof of its validity.	"We know all other worldviews are false...and since we know all others are false, that makes the Christian worldview true."
Ipse Dixit	A dogmatic statement which the opponent is expected to accept as valid.	"The First Principle" that the Bible is the Word of God.  "The most basic way to distort an issue is to deny that it exists."  Believers deny recognizing that "The First Principle" is not an axiom because it is not self-evident as it is premised on the unproven supernatural.
False dilemma	Only 2 outcomes are inevitable	(1) Non-believers must accept the Christian worldview because  (2) the Bible says all other worldviews are false (and therefore irrational).
Ad hominem/ Poisoning the Well	Damning /discrediting the source.	Condemning Biblical study sources; condemning other philosophies; saying that non-believers "suppress the truth" as if they are lying, and claiming non-believers are "fools."
Tautology	Qualifying argument in such a way that it makes it impossible to disprove.	The Bible is the word of God. We know this because the Bible itself tells us so.  (Notice that impossible to disprove supports unfalsifiability)
Shifting the Burden	Burden of proof is shifted to the side which is not making the positive claim	Asking non-believer for solution to problem of skepticism, or asking them to account for "reality" or how their reasoning is valid (when the believer cannot account for their god.)
Special Pleading	Someone or something is exempt from standards for no good reason	In the above example, the believer will say their god does not have to be accounted for, as it is exempt from any accounting. Claiming the same circular reasoning used by Christians is exempt from circularity because it is labeled "virtuous."
Reification	Creating a concrete "thing" out of an idea	Logical absolutes are termed "laws" which were "created by" or "part of " the Christian god.
Equivocation	Using terms in two ways in the same sentence	Claiming the "laws of logic" are "followed" as if they were "laws" when it really means "no exception (known) to the concept" (used at the same time as the conceptual usage)
Proof by Assertion	Proposition repeatedly stated regardless of its contradiction	"The First Principle" that "The Bible is the Word of God, because the Bible itself reveals that it is" already indicated to be a tautology.

 

A Conversation with Jason Petersen, Part 7

Jason Petersen recently published his third "rebuttal" to my finding that his presuppositional argument is unfalsifiable and therefore cannot be accepted as believable or rational.

It should be said that all religions are in themselves unfalsifiable; however, the presuppositional argument makes additional claims:  it not only claims certainty (which moves it beyond a faith claim, as faith by definition must contain an element of uncertainty), it makes a comparative claim that it is the "superior" worldview while all others are "inferior."  This should make it applicable to reality, and therefore testable.  By dismissing any testing, Petersen has made its application to reality non-demonstrable thereby putting the entire apologetic back in with religious faith.

His response has been to attack my ability to respond to him, instead of directly answering the question.  This is traditional, and predictable, for presuppositionalists.  Whenever a presuppositionalist challenges the non-believers' ability to criticize or object to the propositions of their argument, they are evading their burden of response (even though they are likely perfectly capable of having an answer). 

Even if Jason Petersen presented a cogent argument that I was a raving lunatic, it does not change the irrelevancy of his "can't ever be wrong" argument:  it's still unfalsifiable.  His argument has failed to meet the criterion of testability.  And regardless of his claims about me, the unfalsifiability of his argument has been established by Petersen's own statements about it, not any by me.   

A Conversation with Jason Petersen, Part 6

An Example of Jason Petersen "Logic"

 

As part of my "Conversation with Jason Petersen" series I had planned to do a post where I described Petersen's tortuously conjured presuppositional methodology in attempting to prove I was not being logical. It was essentially taking certain words I was using and then ascribing them to a worldview; for example, if I referred to a "practical application" of something, he would say my worldview was that of a pragmatist, and then, almost as if he was scripted, he'd transform that into "the pragmatic worldview was not rational" and therefore I was not rational.

Lo and behold, George at the blog Misplaced Grace did something even better: he wrote up a parody following a similar discussion he had with a presuppositionalist, which precisely describes what Jason seems to be doing. I don't need to do anything further, because this is so illustrative. The names have been replaced with mine and Jason's. Please enjoy.

Jason: Let’s talk about that dog over there. Would you say that that dog is gray?

Karen: That is an elephant, Jason. It’s ten feet tall and has a big trunk. It is an Elephant.

Jason: I didn’t ask you if it was an elephant, Karen. I asked you if that dog is gray. Just answer the question. But be careful, you will have to accept the consequences of your answer.

Karen: Seriously. It’s a goddamn elephant. If your question is “Is that quadruped gray?”, then yes, yes it is.

Jason: I told you to be careful how you answer the question. You should have listened to me. You see Karen, if you answer yes, you are saying that that animal is a dog, and you are committing the fallacy of mutual contradiction. An elephant can’t be a dog, you see. If you answer no, then you are saying that it is not gray, and by their nature all elephants are gray. So again, you are wrong.

Karen: First off, that is the most retarded thing anyone has ever said to me. Second, what about albino elephants? Are they not white, or at least cream colored?

Jason: See, you lost the argument when you answered the question. I am not obliged now to answer any of your arguments because you are wrong no matter how you answer. I claim victory. You admitted that you are incapable of simple color recognition or of species identification, so in your world any animal can be any color, or any species. That makes no logical sense.

Karen: Seriously? Are you even sane?

Jason: I cannot argue with someone who cannot grasp simple logic. Have a nice day.

(aside) Wow, I sure showed her. I got her to admit that an elephant was a dog. What an ass.


That is the logic that he follows. Then he tells everyone that he saw an elephant with an atheist who insisted it was a gray dog. 

Update 5/14/2014:  Compare the above to this, which Petersen actually stated in his last posted comment to me:

One may ask, what else is a Christian supposed to do? There is no authority that is higher than God Almighty(Hebrews 6:13). Since The Bible is my first principle, I will inevitably appeal to it when I defend Christianity. Karen apparently doesn’t understand the nature of axioms, when you defend an axiom, you will have to appeal to it. If you appeal to another principle to defend your axiom, then what you are asserting your axiom is is not really your axiom. Further, I previously asked Karen how she knows her reasoning is valid. By Karen’s logic, she can’t appeal to her own reasoning, because she would have to appeal to it in order to defend it, and of course, Karen thinks that appealing to first principles is fallacious. Karen then offers me rope to hang myself with, but I suspect that I am not the only one who will find her offer to be ironic.

(Face palm!)

A Conversation with Jason Petersen, Part 5

No, I didn't refute Petersen; Petersen did

 

Jason Petersen has already responded to my May 7 "Part 3" post. Of course, he did it at his website without any link or reference from his home page, so I had to find out about it from others who have had run-ins with Petersen.

Karen claims that because my arguments are unfalsifiable, therefore, my 24,000 post was destroyed. She then goes on to, in behavior that is ever so typical for her, straw man me by saying that I couldn’t be wrong, that, therefore, my worldview is not testable. Now, why did I say that my worldview is unfalsifiable? Anyone who read my previous response to her would clearly see that I said that the reason why my worldview is unfalsifiable is because it’s true. How can one falsify the truth? Such a notion is nonsensical. If Karen ever figures out a way to show that the truth is actually false, then perhaps she should go write a book on it. I am sure such a spectacle would have philosophers in awe.

(ONE MORE FACE PALM!)  Jason refuses to recognize what unfalsifiable really means. His "worldview" can neither be proven true nor false. To use the quote from Part 2 of my posts to Petersen: there’s nothing you could ever observe that would be inconsistent with it. In other words, the world where his worldview is true appears exactly identical to the world where his worldview is false. His worldview tells you nothing about the world, and nothing in the world tells you about his worldview. So, there is no reason to believe. The failure to meet the criterion of falsifiability is sufficient grounds to dismiss it.

But Petersen still has to find a way to pat himself on the back and puff out his chest:

Karen also quotes me concerning when I pointed out that if the foundation of her argument is refuted, then her examples fall along with it. That said, I’d like to say something to Karen directly: The problem is, Karen, that the foundation of your argument is still refuted. You have not bothered to respond to the argument that I erected against your idea to test revelation with IQ tests, nor did you respond to the paper that I cited that showed that IQ tests aren’t reliable after all.

It doesn't matter WHAT Petersen claims now about whatever my worldview may be, because in asserting his worldview as "unfalsifiable" he refuted himself. He denigrates something that could possibly test it ("IQ tests aren't reliable after all") which confirms it further.   I may have already suggested trying other tests (there are many) of reasoning and logic skills, but I have this sneaking suspicion that Petersen would conveniently find none of them to be "reliable." 

In his new diatribe, he continues to use Bible verses to back up his claims for "revelation" he receives...from the Bible (?!!!)....while trying to exempt his god as an "appeal to authority" in a special pleading. It's a sad display of circularity.

I'll continue answering him, however, i.e., Jason, here's some more rope if you want it.

A Conversation with Jason Petersen, Part 4

Around the Worldview in 80 Lies (...Half Truths, Deceptions, Misrepresentations and other assorted Falsehoods)

Jason Petersen, throughout his 24,000-word reply to Parts 1 and 2 of our "conversation", told me I was dishonest and lying numerous times; I counted over 20, not including the allegations of dishonesty in his previous post.  The purpose of it was to discredit my character, and of course, to demonize atheists.   So, I will likewise respond to his repeated ad hominem.  I will try to provide some brief explanation for each of his false hoods, and try to describe them for what they are.  He stated that I like to ridicule and mock Christians.  He says he made me look foolish. As I understand the argument for the most part, I know I do not need "to feel foolish" at all.  And if Petersen feels mocked or ridiculed....he is only doing it to himself.

 

Each capitalized "LIE" of Petersen's post (or more appropriate description) is followed by a direct quote of what he said, along with an explanation if required.  I include context where required, although most of his pretensions stand on their own.

 

LIE:  "...she has laced this very paragraph with prejudicial conjecture."  Presuppositional Apologetics IS prejudicial conjecture.

LIE:  " the one benefit that I named was that Christianity solves the problem of skepticism." No, it does NOT solve the problem of skepticism (see last post).  An appeal to supernatural authority does not solve the problem, or as I will call it, "authoritay magic."

LIE:  (False fallacy claim) " After quoting me, Karen moves to straw man..."

LIE:  As a Christian, I believe that we should all be “rational.”  We are both equally rational: if he were going to be honest, Petersen should replace the word "rational" with "Fundamentalist Evangelical Calvinist Literalist."

LIE:  "... in order for her to claim that anything is useful(while being rational) she would have to have a first principle that will solve the problem of skepticism."  (see above)

LIE:  " if she actually tried to solve the problem of skepticism, it would remind her that Christianity is true."  Christianity doesn't solve it either.

LIE:  "She then says that the problem of skepticism is irrelevant to reality. This is quite an ignorant statement to be sure."  If that's true, claiming it is solved by "authoritay magic" makes it more irrelevant and just as ignorant.

LIE:  "Her conception of reality, like other atheists, is delusional and fabricated." 

LIE:  "Alex [Botten] is irrational both in the context of a debate and outside the debate."

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.

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?

A Conversation with Jason Petersen, Part 1

This is an exchange, or what Jason Petersen has called a "debate" between us which began at his website "Answers for Hope". My interest was to challenge him for a response to a presuppositionalist counter I had developed, which is a suggestion to test the assertion or claim the current group of presuppositionalists often seem to infer or imply, best expressed by the website of a newbie presup I've come up against by the name of Surfer Brendan, called "God or Absurdity."

My suggestion is to see if an "absurdity" or a deficiency can be demonstrated independent of any presuppositional conversation in an individual who doesn't accept the God of the presuppositionalist (in relation to attributes which they claim "belong" to their god, namely, logic and reasoning). Surfer Brendan has this great little graphic (right) he uses in a video which makes it look like non-believers have their reasoning capabilities on a shaky foundation, while the Christian is smiling as he stands on a level, firm foundation, "bricked up" by logic, reasoning and morals...and the Bible, of course. I wanted to see if an experienced apologist like Jason might have something new or interesting to tell me in a response (that I could address).

Jason, however, while extolling "benefits" he could not name, kept repeating, and repeating and repeating how his "first principle" solved the "problem of skepticism" and that without it one could not even have a rational conversation, complete with the little digs and put-downs typical of "condescensional apologetics." (Side note:  While I understand some atheists can be pretty rude and profane, I do make efforts not to be that way, and I would expect the apologist to notice.)  The following comment from him, however, was the show-stopper (italics added for emphasis):

... your statement regarding the Christian’s reasoning capabilities would have to be necessarily higher the atheist’s reasoning capabilities show that you simply don’t get it. Atheists can reason like any Christian because they were made in the image of God. The problem is that they cannot account for knowledge in their worldview, so they borrow capital from the Christian worldview. Such a situation has nothing to do with IQ tests.

So, "atheists can reason like any Christian, they just can't account for knowledge in their worldview." There you have it! Redeemed reasoning = Atheist reasoning. So if it doesn't do anything for the atheists' reasoning, what use is it? This means there is no intrinsic purpose to accounting for one's knowledge or solving the problem of skepticism.  It is irrelevant to reality. It's just like "a nice thing to know" but has no other consequence.

For those of you interested in reading further, this is Part 1 of my response, and here is Part 2.

My words will be italics prefaced by my name, followed by Jason's, both indented in pale blue (or might appear as pink) block paragraph, followed by my second response. Please enjoy, and comments are appreciated.