UP IS DOWN AND DOWN IS UP In the Debunking Atheists Facebook group (which should be more aptly named Debunking Theists, as thats really what goes on there), Keith Kaira II and I are involved in a rather silly discussion. Although he is well-spoken - at times - what he attempts to do is flip everything upside down, and commandeer both definitions and psychological / sociological themes. The most recent exchange Ive been having with him goes like this (my words appear in quotes because I culled this from one of his responses to me): __________________________________ Dave Foda: Interesting: You admit that faith cannot exist without reason..... Keith Kaira II: You clearly do not grasp the difference between observable fact and admission. Dave Foda: .....but, but faith - as it applies to knowledge - depends on abductive logic, which is the antithesis of reason. Keith Kaira II: Utter bullshit. No one can ever get faith via abductive logic for no one trusts in guesses. Faith can only be gotten to via deductive and inductive reasoning. You would know this if you had even the slightest clue about faith. Dave Foda: Youre still stuck in the same limited position,..... Keith Kaira II: No. Your limited understanding of the concept makes you come up with such an absurd assertion. Dave Foda: ..... and at some point, you have to come back to empiricism, or proof. Keith Kaira II: No I dont. Empiricism is self-refuting and cant even be empirically verified. It cant even verify logic or reason empirically, the two things that are claimed to make it valid. As for proof. Proof can only be got to via sound logic or irrefutable evidence. Even both. Which are entirely dependent on having faith in the validity of logic and reason in the first place. _______________________ The funniest thing about this is that he keeps insisting that his OP (We are not theists. We simply lack belief in atheism.......) was satirical. Which means he doesnt understand satire. With regard to his fancy on the three forms of logic, deductive logic is what you use to analyze what you can see and experience from observable phenomena; inductive logic is what you can use to make extrapolations based on observable phenomena; but abductive logic is what you use to make assumptions based on guesses. It is in abductive logic that faith (and all of the presuppositions that go along with it) find its shelter. True, faith can be arrived at by inductive logic, but its not sourced there. Its foundation is solidly and exclusively in abductive logic. Plus, when discussing the empirical nature of evidence, its important to note that empiricism demonstrates what is true, regardless of whether or not there is a human mind capable of making an analysis or predictions. If one suggests that Empiricism is self-refuting and cant even be empirically verified, that person has given up their privilege to use a computer, drive a car, or even have a conversation, as engaging in each of these activities depends on a sort of empiricism at a fundamental level.
Posted on: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 03:48:49 +0000