Theopoesis: Head-to-Head Debate Request

[Haven]

Theopoesis: I'm interested in debating you head-to-head on your postmodern-ish presuppositionalist epistemology. I'm interested in showing why such an epistemological view is incoherent, as well as putting forth a brief sketch of my own (secular) view on epistemology. What do you think?

If you accept, this is the format that i'd want the discussion to follow:

Post 1: Introduction and outline of argument (Theopoesis)
Post 2: Rebuttal to Post 1, outline of counterargument (Haven)
Post 3: Rebuttal to rebuttal, conclusion of the argument (Theopoesis)
Post 4: Rebuttal to Post 3, conclusion of the counterargument (Haven)

Debate ends.

No time limit (as we're both busy with school and work ), no word limit, no source requirements (although sources are always helpful). What do you think?

[theopoesis]

Haven:

Just barely made the requested December 11th deadline, but the first post is up. Please take your time in responding. I certainly did. Plus I have the rest of a 25 paper waiting on me, then Christmas. So I can pretty much guarantee no more replies from me until 2013.

Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, Blessed Zwanzaa, Happy New Year, etc. etc. depending on what you want to celebrate.

[theopoesis]

Greetings, Haven.

I just finished reading your final post. Quite well done, I must say. I admit I am slightly frustrated, as I feel that it is only with this final post that you finally put forward a complete alternative to my epistemology. At this point, it is too late to really critique it.

However, I do believe that you misunderstand the principle of aggregation, and that you extend the scientific method into domains where it has no relevance, particularly in the world of metaphysics. I have studied aggregation myself, mostly with reference to voter theory and population dynamics, and would enjoy the opportunity to debate you head to head at a future date on the ability of aggregation to undergird a modern rationalist epistemology.

On one final note, I do want to simply state that I consider it unfair that you insist again that I am only a Christian for cultural reasons. I put forward arguments for why I consider Christian metaphysics superior to Eastern alternatives. Presumably, were I an Easterner and if I had access to the same metaphysical knowledge in light of the same problems, I would come to the same conclusions. I was not raised in a Christian home, but legitimately believe Christian metaphysics are true. The Eastern notion of the trimurti simply does not stand as an alternative to the Trinity because it lacks the necessary metaphysical components of the Trinity in overcoming the problems that I addressed in my first post. To dismiss that as mere ethnocentrism (while ignoring yet again the three arguments I put forward) is unproductive and a waste of my effort.

Nonetheless, should you have time later in the semester, I propose we turn the tables. You put forward a defense of aggregates and the scientific method and JTB, and I then get my chance to respond to them. Let me know if you are interested.

theopoesis

[Haven]

I'd definitely be up for such a debate. I apologize for offending you, I didn't mean my criticism as a personal assault. I made the mistake of projecting my biases about Christian apologists (yes, a bias on my part) on to you, and that was wrong. Please forgive me.

[Haven]

Also, I should point out that I hold to an evidentialist epistemology, not a rationalist one.

[Angel]

I read through the debate and I must say it was good - well-written and thought out for the most part. I do think that the debate was too short as far as the number of rebuttal posts. It was also too long as far as the number of different topics involved which I believe Haven brought up during the debate. When you have so many differnet points on different topics to respond to, then its easy to gloss over a point and spend more time on another point and give the appearance that you came out strong when really not all points were covered. For the reader, it would be hard to see that not all points were covered when there's so much jumping around to different topics and thus the person who glossed over some points may appear to be a winner over someone who addressed all of the points.

From post 2 of the Debate..

My argument will be in five stages:
(1) First, I will explain my basic epistemology, which is the foundation of my worldview.
(2) Next, I will explain why my epistemology is more viable than other alternatives.
(3) Then I will explain how the proposed epistemology might lead one to Christianity. This will be a brief component.
(4) I will then suggest three broad philosophical categories which I believe only Trinitarian theism can explain within my proposed framework. This is reason for me to continue in my worldview.
(5) The fourth argument will require me to demonstrate that the three categories in question are, in fact, not resolved by the secular alternative (which is the main alternative in question here).

That's a lot to cover or maybe I'm thinking too much in terms of making it easier to see who got straight to the point or making it easier to see who wins. Now on to the hard part.

So who won?
I will say that I believe that Haven won this debate in terms of strategy and substance as far as what you guys were able to debate so far. Perhaps the strategy favored Haven, as well. I just feel that Haven made more of a solid case for why his worldview is the best means/philosophy to lead to truth as it is, and I found no real problems with his points on morality that would warrant calling it bad or worse in comparison to Christianity.

[theopoesis]

I'd definitely be up for such a debate. I apologize for offending you, I didn't mean my criticism as a personal assault. I made the mistake of projecting my biases about Christian apologists (yes, a bias on my part) on to you, and that was wrong. Please forgive me.

There's nothing to forgive, Haven. But thanks for apologizing anyway. Please know I never took any offense. When I said it was unfair, I just meant that it was the one concluding remark in your final post that I wasn't content to let you have the last word on. I just wanted to clear the record and say that I actually had reasons, stated reasons, as for why I believed what I did. When I say it was a waste of effort, I just mean that I think we both have substantive arguments that neither got to engage very well in this debate. I threw you a billion words, and you didn't realize what I was looking for until your final post, in essence giving me no words on the topic of epistemology. I think we'll need to be more careful next time in setting up a topic and format so that it's not you dismissing me as a product of culture, and me dismissing you as having no worldview.

Let me know when you want to discuss future debates.

[theopoesis]

I read through the debate and I must say it was good - well-written and thought out for the most part.

Thanks for taking the time to read. Just a quick comment:

I do think that the debate was too short as far as the number of rebuttal posts. It was also too long as far as the number of different topics involved which I believe Haven brought up during the debate. When you have so many differnet points on different topics to respond to, then its easy to gloss over a point and spend more time on another point and give the appearance that you came out strong when really not all points were covered.

From post 2 of the Debate..

My argument will be in five stages:
(1) First, I will explain my basic epistemology, which is the foundation of my worldview.
(2) Next, I will explain why my epistemology is more viable than other alternatives.
(3) Then I will explain how the proposed epistemology might lead one to Christianity. This will be a brief component.
(4) I will then suggest three broad philosophical categories which I believe only Trinitarian theism can explain within my proposed framework. This is reason for me to continue in my worldview.
(5) The fourth argument will require me to demonstrate that the three categories in question are, in fact, not resolved by the secular alternative (which is the main alternative in question here).

That's a lot to cover or maybe I'm thinking too much in terms of making it easier to see who got straight to the point or making it easier to see who wins.

I agree that this is a lot to cover. I would much prefer to debate epistemology straight up, but the specific request earlier in this forum was for a discussion of how my epistemology leads to theism. So I had to cover these five basic components in order to meet Haven's request. A very bulky intro post was required, and indeed I would have preferred it had Haven actually addressed the epistemology question from the original challenge in his original rebuttal. Not doing so made the bulk of my first post pointless. So thanks for being patient and reading it anyway, Hopefully our next debate will allow me to really address Haven's epistemology as laid out in his fourth post.

From earlier in this thread where we set up the terms of the debate...

Haven:

Just for clarification, am I to defend my view of epistemology, or how this view of epistemology leads me to a particular brand of theism? I just noticed you mentioned your own "secular" epistemology, and it would seem that, in many ways, my own epistemology need not be theistic.

theo

How your epistemology leads to theism.

I can do that. But it definitely will take more work. That would entail:

(1) Explaining my epistemology.
(2) Presenting arguments for why my view of epistemology is correct.
(3) Applying my view of epistemology to fundamental questions of worldview.
(4) Explaining how Christianity resolves the issues in question.
(5) Suggesting some ways that secular alternatives do not.

Am I missing anything?

So now you see where I came up with my unwieldy debate strategy. *shrugs*

[Angel]

I think one way to make any future debates easier is if you two debate on one worldview at a time. From reading the debate topic that Haven came up with and after rereading parts of the debate, I see that Haven actually offered an alternative worldview. I don't think that is necessary to show if Theopoesis's worldview is unreasonable. The reverse can also be done where there's a debate just on Haven's worldview and if it's reasonable.

I also didn't mean to come off as if i wouldn't read a debate because it's too long. I will read it if I'm interested in the topic or if I was to judge who won.

[Angel]

I think one way to make any future debates easier is if you two debate on one worldview at a time. From reading the debate topic that Haven came up with and after rereading parts of the debate, I see that Haven actually offered an alternative worldview. I don't think that is necessary to show if Theopoesis's worldview is unreasonable. The reverse can also be done where there's a debate just on Haven's worldview and if it's reasonable.

I also didn't mean to come off as if i wouldn't read a debate because it's too long. I will read it if I'm interested in the topic or if I was to judge who won.

It is too late to edit my post so I will post a correction to my last post. I should've said that Haven was -required- to present an alternative worldview according to the debate terms. I say this to factor in Theopoesis's point about Haven not presenting enough about his secular worldview, at least at first. Perhaps in a future debate I can be involved as a third person for a 3 person debate to show why neither view, metaphysical naturalism and Theopoesis's epistemology, can stand alone as being valid and that parts of both views are needed to be a worldview that best lead to truth. Some things may even remain unknowable. I'm still formulating my view and have lots to
learn so we'll keep in touch.

[theopoesis]

I think one way to make any future debates easier is if you two debate on one worldview at a time. From reading the debate topic that Haven came up with and after rereading parts of the debate, I see that Haven actually offered an alternative worldview. I don't think that is necessary to show if Theopoesis's worldview is unreasonable. The reverse can also be done where there's a debate just on Haven's worldview and if it's reasonable.

I also didn't mean to come off as if i wouldn't read a debate because it's too long. I will read it if I'm interested in the topic or if I was to judge who won.

It is too late to edit my post so I will post a correction to my last post. I should've said that Haven was -required- to present an alternative worldview according to the debate terms. I say this to factor in Theopoesis's point about Haven not presenting enough about his secular worldview, at least at first. Perhaps in a future debate I can be involved as a third person for a 3 person debate to show why neither view, metaphysical naturalism and Theopoesis's epistemology, can stand alone as being valid and that parts of both views are needed to be a worldview that best lead to truth. Some things may even remain unknowable. I'm still formulating my view and have lots to
learn so we'll keep in touch.

A three person head to head debate is a fascinating idea. Do you think it's doable? I do still think just Haven and I bit off more than we could chew. I'm in agreement with you though that he came out on top in this one, so do want the chance to evaluate his position more clearly. A second person in dialogue would probably be beneficial for us both, but at the same time it seems it might also make things more chaotic.