Saturday, June 8, 2013

THE ONTOLOGY OF THEISM- Jersey Flight

In most cases, the theist, unless he has a higher education (and even here one is often the victim of subtleties) resorts to the fallacy of "Poisoning the Well." Isn't this the universal complaint against non-theists: that we are immoral, impious reprobates?

This is a form of abuse in the name of God, on the basis of groundless suppositions. In order for such a charge to function with authority it must be able to establish some form of credibility. But on what basis can such a charge be founded? One is in need of authority and yet one is condemned by an ontology of metaphysical futility.

The transcendental reality, of those who commit the fallacy of "Poisoning the Well" (among other fallacies), is that they cannot deal with the argument. Hence, the existence of the fallacy is proof of the incompetence of their belief.

So, in relation to theism, the existence of fallacies proves something; not that the antithesis should be condemned on the basis of an irrelevant and unsustainable defect (namely lack of piety), but that theism cannot legitimately participate in the conversation. The standard of reason (of intelligent deduction from evidence) is simply too high for the religious person to maintain. There is a total absence of rational ability due to the dilapidated ontology of theistic belief. What theism is, is also the reason for its inability toward reason.

Case and point: the ontology of theism guarantees the existence and necessity of fallacy in the face of reason. To be a theist is to be committed to an epistemology of justification on the basis of fallacy. 




CORRESPONDENCE ON THESIS


I.

Atheist: "A bright moral line between theists and non-theists might make you feel good, but you haven't indicated its location."

More than indication: one introduces the term G-O-D (which is empty until proven substantive).

Long before any kind of theism one presupposes the authority of Naturalism. Hence, the idea of G-O-D is informed by Naturalistic principles/ Naturalistic principles are not informed by concepts of G-O-D, and more importantly, neither do Naturalistic principles presuppose the existence of G-O-D= but theism always presupposes the existence (authority) of Naturalistic principles as a necessity, in order to predicate on the prospects, attributes of G-O-D [the more you attack reason and logic the more you undermine your own predication of God!]

However, being open to the conversation means being open to the possibility of what is being said (one can indeed be wrong). If you dear sir, think you can justify theism, without the aid of fallacy, by all means make your case, but at present, you have merely complained, that you don't like the conclusion [you have repudiated the argument you have not refuted the argument]. This means nothing. In the future I suggest a refutation.  



II.

My dear Sir,

Did I not refute your claim?
 

Atheist: "A bright moral line between theists and non-theists might make you feel good, but you haven't indicated its location."

More than indication: one introduces the term G-O-D (which is empty until proven substantive).

Is this not a bright (I'm not so sure about your use of the word moral) line between theists and non-theists? Is this not the essence; the essential ingredient of theistic ontology itself? Is this not a separative indication?

Atheist: "being generally wrong because you believe they have committed a fallacy..."

Well, generally speaking, when someone commits a fallacy they are generally wrong, wouldn't you agree? Surely you would not argue that they are "generally right" because they have committed a fallacy?

[...further clarification: yes, I do believe theism commits a fallacy (that it MUST commit a fallacy), in contrast, you don't believe theism commits a fallacy in the process of seeking justification?]

Atheist: "I don't see where you have made an argument or been particularly "thoughtful"."

Is it possible that your subjectivity fails to see what is thoughtful? Can I be thoughtful even if you don't see it? Does the fact that Midas never saw the moon mean the moon is not there?

Atheist: "Do you not recognize that you are changing the subject by asking me to justify theism?"

Correction Sir, I am asking you to stand behind your insinuation that theism can be justified without a fallacy; that in making the opposite claim I have done something wrong (you took it upon yourself to challenge my view in favor of the rational-purity of theism).

Atheist: "...you accuse theists of being fallaciously closed to the arguments against theism..."

I made no such accusation. Where did I do this? I argued that the ontology of theism condemns it to a justification of fallacy.

Atheist: "...you match theists' presumed ad hominem against atheists with one of your own against theists."

"Presumed ad hominem?" You don't believe this is the case (which is really only one fallacy among a multitude of fallacies), why not?

Ad Hominem--- you mean pointing out THE FACT that theism has no other option but to rely on fallacy for a means of justification? I suppose I'm guilty as charged. But the assertion that this is an illegitimate point to make against theism is for you to prove.

Atheist: "It might ultimately be pointless, but why go out of your way to make it less likely by pushing another stereotype?" ---this is for you to prove.

 
My subject was "the ontology of theism." The argument is that theism, for what it is (the very essence of its being) requires a fallacy in the case of rational justification. You are free to disagree, but by all means, please provide an example of theistic justification in which there is no need for fallacy. I personally know of no such case.

As a Naturalist I am not ontologically committed to a position of justification by way of fallacy (and the real beauty is that I don't have to be)! If you think theism and atheism are on equal ontological grounds, then please make your case. There is something disingenuous and haughty about your reply--- clearly you do not embrace theism? Surely you know there is no such thing as a rationally justified theism (or else I presume you would be a theist)? So what is your problem with my position?

IN DEFENSE OF THEISM?

Atheist: "I read nothing more than you accusing theists of being generally wrong because you believe they have committed a fallacy (the fallacy of poisoning the well)..." [this sounds like the complaint of a zealous theistic apologist.]

And you don't believe theism commits this fallacy among other fallacies? Does this premise really require detailed justification (most specifically in light of your own presuppositions!)?

You are most certainly correct Sir, I have indeed "accused theists" of being committed to justification by way of fallacy. If you think they are not, or any theist for that matter thinks they can prove the existence of G-O-D, without the aid of fallacy, I am positively open to the conversation. You act as if this premise requires justification beyond the claims of theism itself--- as if I must open the volumes of Swinburne and Plantinga to make my case. Rubbish!

Do you think there is such a thing as a rationally justified theism? Has there ever been such a thing? If you say no, then clearly you must agree with me regarding the ontology of theism (that it must be committed to fallacy)? [which thing is true because it must always be committed to God--- hence, the ontology of theism!]

I am tired of my fellow man being slandered and abused in the name of God by the dictates of empty theistic piety. Theism is a specific thing, which commits it to a specific mode of justification. A puny child could never overpower a well developed man without stepping outside the context of physical strength (in the case of logic and theism this means fallacy, which is simply a matter of the ontology of the thing in question).

So does theism have an ontology, if so, is it rational or irrational? Have you ever thought of theism in terms of ontology?

I'm afraid I must resign beyond this point. And just to show you what kind of man I am, it is very possible that I have "overlooked" one of your complaints, or that I am, at some point, guilty of a fallacy, but nothing so serious as to refute my position regarding the ontology of theism--- for my position against theism is not contingent on my ability to argue, but on the nature of theism itself!

'Case and point: the ontology of theism guarantees the existence and necessity of fallacy in the face of reason. To be a theist is to be committed to an epistemology of justification on the basis of fallacy.'

respectfully yours,

Jersey Flight