Fallacy

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Gremlinboard ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by meta_human [203.47.126.10 - ] on 13 December 2001 at 16.17.05 ZuluTime:

from what i have gathered, from her highly defensive apologium, Hunter's metaphysical (and inescapbably, existential) disposition entails the following...

1. that Faith (and strangely, "belief") requires irrationality; or at least an unjustified supposition. {and there was something in there about she herself having no faith - quite the presumptuous little hoodlum)

2. that she does not hold to anything not based on "evidence" (what type of evidence i could not extrapolate from her).

and 3. religiosity, or indeed anything mystic, necessarily requires fallaciousness, because "everyone is really an agnostic" since "nobody knows for sure".

and so here is the inherent contradiction that comprises Hunter's [highly structured] worldview: "i have no faith, yet i have faith that God/s haven't made it a condition of my existence that i seek the truth"; in other words, Hunter sits back, supposedly dispassionate (though very emotional) and supposedly objective (yet of very selected interest), in a state of epistemological nihilism - claiming that her very consciousness does not require access to truth. yet (!) at the same time, she claims that this position is true!

nevertheless, her actually ontology is that of [what is called in the philosophy world] Strong Agnosticism. not surprisingly, there are very few strong agnostics left, because such agnosticism (in the tradition of Hume and others) requires that one rejects as a surety the existance of other minds. a rationalist empiricst such as Hunter, rejects all that which is not conclusively proven via demonstration. but alas, one can not demonstarte the existence of other minds, only infer. even the existance of the brain organ, is based upon a whole series of prejudices which the strong agnostic must reject (such as the reliability and unprovability of the senses).

i could just as easily enter into an entire monograph refuting Hunter's dogmatic materialism/monism/atheism. but i'm sure this is not the appropriate venue - and such a designation would surely not be appreciated by the individual at whom this is dedicated.

so, let me just close with a short succinct refutation of strong agnosticism.

Hunter, you have faith that the logical conclusions you have reached are correct. you were not born with the conclusions you now cling to at the exclusion of all others.

Hunter, you have obviously not sought metaphysical truth to any great extent, therefore, it is quite unfair and hypocritical of you to judge those who have as somehow mistaken.

Hunter, your belief in the existance of other minds is not based on evidence, or reason, but inferential intuition. Likewise, i would be bold enough to venture that you hold sundry BELIEFS; namely, an objective morality, an ultimate reality, the order of the universe and the subsequent existance of the thing we call 'truth', and many others.

Hunter, to claim that we are all agnostic concerning ontology is patently false. for example, any sentient beings KNOWS, if nothing else, that she exists. furthermore, have you investigated every person who claims to "know for sure" before you summarily dismiss them? of course you haven't - more errancy, more hypocrisy, more contradiction.

as such, i can only conclude that Hunter is mistaken in her metaphysical propositions, and has achieved a level nothing more, than [at least in terms of philosophy] intellectual adolescence.

and finally, a pertinent quotation: "Reason's last step is the recognition that there are an infinite number of things which are beyond it." (Pascal, 'Pensees')

Follow Ups: