Feb 27, 2013
The fallacy of ontic entailment
The fallacy of ontic entailment consists in drawing ontological conclusions from epistemological convictions. There is an explanatory gap—an epistemic one—which means we cannot prove what we claim to know. But the epistemic gap in no way entails ontological conclusions: we exist and so does the world, irrespective of our epistemic limitations. And, strictly speaking, we can’t explicitly explain how we can know. This is a function of human finitude. So the two erroneous conclusions commonly drawn from the ‘fact’ of human finitude are that we can’t know the world and that the world itself is relative to our thinking and acting. Roughly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Very nicely said! I am wondering if you could explain this a little more? I am writing a thesis on Polanyi's 'tacit knowledge' and atheism. My argument is that it is not that atheists don't have an argument for the non-existence of God, but rather that they are lacking a formulation and consciousness of tacit knowledge which points them toward truths attributed to God. That is to say that they are lacking the 'threading' of all their experiences that point to the existence of God. For example, using St. Edith Stein: beauty points to God. When someone names something beautiful, but why asked why, he cannot explain his reasonings, it could be said that this is an instance of tacit knowledge that points to God. For Aquinas says, "All men have an implicit knowledge of God." Is the atheist unable to string together experiences of tacit knowledge that point toward God? Are they unable to recognize this tacit knowledge in them, and if/when once found, unable to articulate it, pointing them toward their finitude, thus towards a transcendent being?
Sorry if this is confusing. As you can tell, I have not developed ideas for my thesis enough. Your blog was very interesting to me, and points me in a solid direction. Please expand more if possible. Thanks!
Thanks for the comment Anonymous!
I think that you are getting at the issue of how we make sense of the world as we see it. How we 'thread' our experiences (eg of beauty) into a worldview. And you ask how the atheist doesn't see it like you do or how they make sense of a transcendent experience of beauty.
If that's what you are talking about I guess it boils down to the interpretive framework you use to see the world. The atheist rules out the possibility of a transcendent framework that includes God. On that assumption, beauty must be explainable on scientific grounds only.
Now the atheist might (validly) object, 'hold on, I have evidence for ruling out God.' And you might say, 'but I am offering the transcendent experience of beauty as evidence for the existence of God.'
So it comes down in part, to how one views evidence and what one allows to count as evidence. At that point presuppositions play a stronger role. Most atheists are probably inclined towards the 'evidence = scientific evidence' sort of view. Most theists have a wider understanding of what counts as evidence.
Enough: your thoughts?
Cheers,
Chris
Thanks Chris!
A fair argument on behalf of the atheist. I suppose that the framework that the he is operating in is precisely what I am addressing in my thesis.
My thesis is not so much as to prove any framework right or wrong, but to encourage thought that perhaps the 'theist's framework' is worth considering. Perhaps the atheist would see something in the framework I am presupposing that is fascinating to him, to which he wants to consider and pursue further.
To comment on the atheist's view that "evidence=scientific evidence" I think could be summed up from a quote that Polanyi provides in his book, "The Tacit Dimension."
He says, "“We are approaching here a crucial question. The declared aim of modern science is to establish a strictly detached, objective knowledge. Any falling short of this ideal is accepted only as a temporary imperfection, which we must aim at eliminating. But suppose that tacit thought forms an indispensable part of all knowledge, then the ideal of eliminating all personal elements of knowledge would, in effect, aim at the destruction of all knowledge. The ideal of exact science would turn out to be fundamentally misleading and possibly a source of devastating fallacies.” (TD 20)
What are your thought on this? Thanks again for your very helpful comment!
-Matt
Hi Matt,
Yes... but there are two issues with 'scientific evidence'...
One is whether all evidence must be scientific (as many and especially 'new' atheists seem to think.
But the second more important issue is Polanyi's point: we have been led to believe in a myth about science. Scientific evidence is not what the Cartesian dream imagines it might be. So in fact, 'the ideal of exact science' IS 'fundamentally misleading' and IS 'a source of devastating fallacies.' That's Polanyi's argument.
BTW: do you know of the Polanyi Society in the US? They have an email list which is interesting.
Finally back to frameworks: in my comment above I might have seemed to imply a balance between the theist and atheist views. I'm trying to be fair... but I don't think the atheist view is nearly so encompassing as the Christian view. I don't see how it can seriously cope with so much of what we take to be essential to being human. Explanations of love and morality and awe and transcendence in terms of brain chemistry and neuronal firings just don't seem to cut it.
Cheers,
Chris
Chris,
So sorry that this is a late reply. I got caught up with my thesis and then went on Spring Break.
Thanks so much for your helpful comments. I am pleased with my thesis and think it turned out nicely.
I am familiar with the Polanyi Society. Thanks for the heads up.
Thanks for you crucial clarification there at the end of the last comment. It made me think harder about my argument, and thus helped me to make a stronger defense for it.
Thanks again for all your help, and good luck in your studies!
God Bless,
Matt
Thanks Matt. I'm glad the thesis came together well. Would that mine would do the same.
Cheers,
Chris
Post a Comment