Aron Ra on The Place with The New Covenant

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I watched a couple of videos Aron posted on his FTB blog, Ace of Clades, and wanted to give my thoughts on them.

• * Dr. Jones, around 16:30 onwards, makes the very good point that it would be better to have linguists argue the case against creationists' understanding of the Bible to show that the latter don't know what the words actually mean in context, rather than scientists arguing whether the Bible is scientifically correct or not.
  
  * Aron refers to creationists as being "dishonest".
  
  I would have to disagree with this, as it does not allow for those who genuinely believe what they are saying. Dr. Jones, around 44, tries several times to put forward this possibility in referring to the Koinē Greek word, pīstīs - which he interprets as "perspective", rather than "faith" as it's normally translated in modern times (although I've also seen it interpreted as "commitment").
  
  As I've posted elsewhere, "When someone makes a false statement, only two possible explanations are possible: either the person doesn't know what they're talking about, which raises questions about their competence, or they are bearing false witness, which rasies questions about their integrity". In the case of the latter, it is correct to call them dishonest - but not the former, who can only be labelled misguided.
  
  * Also, Dr. Jones takes issue with Chomsky about the idea that mathematics, for example, is a artificial construct, something which mankind has created because it works. Aron notes that it is a discovery.
  
  I think that there's some confusion here.
  
  There are two criteria involved here: an event (its existence) and a symbol.
  
  There are, thus, four options:
  
  1. Neither an event or symbol;
  
  2. An event without an associated symbol;
  This is where the event exists but we've yet to discover it (and assign it a symbol).
  
  3. An event with a associated symbol;
  This is where we've discovered the event and assigned it a symbol.
  
  For example, π, the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter: we have the event (the existence of the ratio) and its associated symbol.
  
  4. A symbol without an associated event.
  In this category, there are two possibilities.
  
  a) In scientific theories, predictions are made for which there are no evidence to date. For example, Einstein predicted gravitational lensing, which took decades for evidence to be observed. So, we have the symbol - "gravitational lensing" - without the event.
  
  b) There's also the possibility of a symbol being assigned to a concept for which there's no counterpart in reality. For hard atheists, the concept of "God" falls into this category. One can also argue that failed explanations - failed hypotheses/theories in science - fall into this category.
  
  Given the above, it's easy to see how there can be some confusion over whether mathematics - and other explanations - exist in reality or are mere "social constructs". Aspects of mathematics - inter-relationships in Nature - already exist, and remain to be discovered though the symbology for them is invented.

In this longer video, in which they discuss "presuppositional logic" of the Sye Ten Bruggencate variety, Matthew Steele (at 33 minutes onwards) and Ozymandias Ramses II (around 55 minutes onwards) make a number of very good points. Matthew also gives a key question to ask presuppositionalists:

What justification do you provide that I or anyone else should accept the claim you're making that the God of the Bible is the only possible source of knowledge where we can be absolutely certain?

Personally, I don't see why there's such a problem with these people.

There are two types, in my view:

1) "I was born with a absolute standard (of knowledge)", which begs the Bruggencate question; "How do you know?" - saying "I know that I know because I know" is circular, ergo *raspberry*;

2) "I had a revelation (after which I have a absolute standard)", means that before your "revelation" you didn't - ergo, you had no absolute standard by which to judge whether this experience was a delusion, hallucination, illusion or revelation.

In the latter case, if they claim that they had this "revelation" whilst reading the Bible - which, as Matthew pointed out, is a key concession that the Biblical God is their standard - and were "wooed" by the Holy Ghost, one could then ask Matthew's key question.

However, they are not just claiming a absolute standard of knowledge but absolute knowlege per se.

Not that they know everything right now - but they should *know* whether any statement is true or false.

You could point out that they should be able to tell whether any statement they see, read or hear is true or false. You could then make a statement - "I have a twin" - and if they can't tell whether that's true or false, then they clearly can't have a absolute standard of knowledge or absolute knowledge.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Engelbert]

I watched bits of this episode, but have watched 'The Place' from time to time myself. I think they have some great discussions there and very much enjoy the general approach they take. They attempt to foster an atmosphere of engagement without appeals to derision and condescension. My personal opinion is that this can be very conducive to a fruitful exchange of ideas.

Ozymandias is one of their regular contributors and for his appearances on The Place, I believe he may be my favourite you-tuber at present. I think he is very persuasive, well versed in philosophy and can be very interesting.

I'm not really sure why presuppositionalism carries much sway either, but perhaps one reason is because it can confuse people who are unprepared for it. They have suggested this as a cause for its success on The Place before and by suddenly appealing to a core and complicated aspect of epistemology, an apologist can probably put any unprepared interlocutor in a daze. It might be a small issue in philosophy, but if you're unfamiliar with it, you might find yourself a little tongue tied. Perhaps this is one reason why it has found a little success. Through this, it offers a chance for an apologist to attack rather than just defend, by questioning the nature of knowledge and what opponents can say they truly know. They have a valid point in asking this question. It's the answer that they then provide that seems problematic. It seems unjustified and asserted rather than an arguable alternative to what most of us would have as the basis for our particular world view, as well as being an answer revealed from within the worldview about which they suggest we cannot be sure. I'm a little confused by it overall - I lack full understanding. It has also been suggested (perhaps in the linked videos, although I didn't watch this week's episodes fully) that Sye puts forward a questionable, or misrepresentative picture of the actual apologetic as formulated originally by Cornelius Van Til, to which, despite not accepting as a strong argument, The New Covenant Group give a little more credence as an apologetic.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Agreed.

One of the most telling comments that was sent to the show said, "(Sye's) theory of knowledge doesn't lead to knowledge".

It seems to me that Sye's presuppositional argument resembles a kid playing cowboys and indians who, having "shot" someone, says, "YOU'RE DEAD!! You can't play anymore!".

There doesn't seem to be anything more to it than that.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[keenidiot]

I watched bits of this episode, but have watched 'The Place' from time to time myself. I think they have some great discussions there and very much enjoy the general approach they take. They attempt to foster an atmosphere of engagement without appeals to derision and condescension. My personal opinion is that this can be very conducive to a fruitful exchange of ideas.

Ever seen Science and Curiosity, by chance?

 

[Engelbert]

Hi keenidiot. How's it going?

No, unfortunately I haven't seen that show. They produce an array of different shows on their channel and I've seen some, but not all.

 

[keenidiot]

Hi keenidiot. How's it going?

Eh, not to shabby.

No, unfortunately I haven't seen that show. They produce an array of different shows on their channel and I've seen some, but not all.

[/quote]
It's one where the fellow on it reads science news and speculates about why they are important, and he occasionally interviews scientists. He's a bit of an idiot, but he has some neat discussions with religious scientists.