Apologist Daniel Ray One More Time, Part 2

Part 1 was previously published here. For Part 2 I'm linking to the comment section of a recent post. LINK. What Ray wrote provoked the following comments. [See how patient I am, yeah, right!!]

Loftus:

When it comes to philosophy almost everyone gets it wrong. As a philosopher myself Daniel ought not treat what I say as if I'm ignorant about it. Let me explain...

Most thoughtful people on both sides of the atheist/theist fence equivocate on the word. In one sense the word "philosophy" is used as a discipline of learning in which the content is agreed upon among philosophers within that group. The five broad philosophical groupings are Metaphysics, Epistemology, Politics, Ethics and Aesthetics. There are other sub-groupings like Occidental and Oriental philosophy, and perspectives and/or focuses, like Logic, Phenomenology, Existentialism, Analytical and Continental philosophy. A philosopher is a recognized expert is one or more of these fields.

So far so good?

The fallacy of equivocation comes into play when the word "philosophy" is used as a substitue for the word "reason." Everyone reasons, some better than others. But not everyone is an expert in a particular branch, or sub-branch, of philosophy.

Herein lies the big mistake: EVEN SCIENTISTS REASON! In fact, science depends on sound reasoning. So there is no distinction between philosophy and science, if philosophy is to be defined as sound reasoning based on objective evidence. Scientists must use sound reasoning or they aren't doing good science. Objective evidence is paramount but sound reasoning is also required. Reason without science is not doing science. Science without reason is not good science. One cannot substract sound reasoning and still have good science. But objective evidence is paramount for there to be any science at all!

So you grossly misunderstand what I'm speaking about. "Philosophy" as a substitute for "reason" is not what I'm talking about. The only distinction that matters is between evidential reasoning and non-evidential reasoning, that is, reasoning based on objective evidence or reasoning based on insufficient objective evidence, or none at all.

Evidence, objective evidence, is paramount. The more of it the better. Beliefs based on insufficient evidence are to be rejected. The conclusions we accept must be based on the strength of the evidence. Period

Daniel Ray:

Take your assertion that we ought to prefer objective evidence to abstract reasoning. Ok John, to be consistent, you need to provide objective physical evidence of this claim. But you will be hard-pressed to do so, for you have arrived at this conclusion purely by abstract subjective, reasoning, not evidence. What bit of physical evidence tells us what sort of a priori epistemology we “ought” to prefer? This is an is/ought fallacy John. Nothing in the physical world tells us what we ought to do.

Loftus:

There's always an end to a means. The end is to get to the truth as best as possible (and sometimes that is practically impossible). The means is objective evidence, along with reasoning about that evidence.

You argue that chance events, like the origins of the universe and life, provide objective evidence. Just consider the words I'm inputting in this comment of mine including typoes lik theese. I'm doing so at a McDonald's in Dubuque, Iowa, wearing jeans, a black shirt that should have been washed a couple of days ago, with hair precisely as long as it is, seeing some guy pass by me as I typed a few words, listening to a particular song being played, etc, etc. I was birthed on September 18, 1954, at a particular hospital with a particular nurse attending my Mom. In fact, what are the odds all of this took place, that every single event in my life took place in the exact order it took place? Now go calculate the odds, 100 years ago, that it would all take place in the order it took place.

It stretches the mind. But IT DID TAKE PLACE! So we know that odds like that take place ALL OF THE TIME! DO THE MATH FOR EVERY PERSON ALIVE. It proves nothing if you can show there were a huge odds for something to take place. That's why odds don't prove anything, in and of themselves.

You said: "Take your assertion that we ought to prefer objective evidence to abstract reasoning. Ok John, to be consistent, you need to provide objective physical evidence of this claim. But you will be hard-pressed to do so, for you have arrived at this conclusion purely by abstract subjective, reasoning, not evidence."

You act exactly like the Sophists whom Socrates had to disabuse of their "pretending to know what they don't know."

Objective evidence trumps abstract reasoning when they conflict, hands down, no iffs, ands or buts about it. It's especially the case when people like you need shown you are reasoning like a Sophist.

How did I arrive at this conclusion? It is affirmed every single day in our daily lives, especially when we rehearse the progress of science through the centuries. It's seen in our courts with DNA testing, dash cams, blood testing, GPS tracking, phone cameras, etc.

So the objective evidence that objective evidence is to be preferred to abstract reasoning is the millions of times objective evidence trumps abstract reasoning.

You can see this yourself by what you would do if someone close to you said she got pregnant by an angel. Go on. What would you do?