Note to Reppert, Plantinga and Craig: The Claimed Proper Basicality of the Christian Set of Beliefs is Utter and Complete Nonsense!
The more I hear about this extremely queer argument the more I'm inclined to think with Dr. David Eller that believing and knowing are two separate things. He argues for a change in our nomenclature even though I'm not yet convinced he's right. It's just that there is no comparison of the Christian set of beliefs with our knowledge that the past happened. By my lights I see the belief in Elves and the belief in the Christian God as resting on the same foundations--culturally adopted ignorant and delusional beliefs which have no place among intelligent and highly educated scientifically minded people.
The fact that I have been treating Christian beliefs respectfully in the past does not mean I ever thought differently about them or of the people who hold to them. Christian, you are ignorant. Sorry, but that’s what I honestly think. Maybe by my saying this it will make you pause. Just become either an anthropologist, a psychologist, a scientist, a real Biblical scholar, or an archaeologist and it’ll help you appreciate what I’m saying. Yes, there are conservative believers in those fields, I know, but the ratio of conservative believers to liberals and non-believers is much much less in these fields of learning than the general populace (and Biblical scholars started out being conservative). I know why this is so, so you'll have to guess why. Philosophers of religion like Reppert, Plantinga, and Craig are merely accepting the results of shoddy conservative biblical scholarship and then seeking ways to defend those results without being Biblical scholars or archaeologists themselves to know the difference, like Hector Avalos, William Dever, Bart Ehrman are, along with so many others. [Craig is probably best to be thought of as an apologist, not a Biblical scholar]. And anthropology is, well, the clincher, or is it psychology, or paleontology, or geology, or astronomy, or any one of a number of other disciplines of learning?
I've learned a great deal while Blogging these few years. Just like flat earthers are ignorant so also are believers. But there's more to it since being ignorant doesn't exactly describe such a person. Believers are blinded by their passions because they have been brainwashed by their culture. Our culturally inherited beliefs are what we use to “see” with. These inherited beliefs are much like our very eyes themselves, so it’s extremely difficult to examine that which we use to see with. We cannot easily pluck out our eyes to look at them since we use our eyes to see. But we must do this if we truly want to examine that which we were taught to believe. It’s a simple fact that brainwashed people do not know they have been brainwashed!
And there is no parity with an atheist here, so don't say "you too." For the real debate is NOT WITH ATHEISM AT ALL! The real debate is between the Christianities of the past and today along with the debates between a plethora of Christianities in today’s world. Then this debate kicks into high gear between the myriad of religions themselves. An atheist is someone who simply doesn't think that a particular set of religious claims is correct. I came by my atheism as the result of a process of elimination, as most atheists have done. Christians are on that same road too. They just fail to understand that the same kinds of requirements they demand of other Christianities and of other religions they reject also apply to their own beliefs.
As I’ve said before, I think I have solved the Christian puzzle.
The fact that I have been treating Christian beliefs respectfully in the past does not mean I ever thought differently about them or of the people who hold to them. Christian, you are ignorant. Sorry, but that’s what I honestly think. Maybe by my saying this it will make you pause. Just become either an anthropologist, a psychologist, a scientist, a real Biblical scholar, or an archaeologist and it’ll help you appreciate what I’m saying. Yes, there are conservative believers in those fields, I know, but the ratio of conservative believers to liberals and non-believers is much much less in these fields of learning than the general populace (and Biblical scholars started out being conservative). I know why this is so, so you'll have to guess why. Philosophers of religion like Reppert, Plantinga, and Craig are merely accepting the results of shoddy conservative biblical scholarship and then seeking ways to defend those results without being Biblical scholars or archaeologists themselves to know the difference, like Hector Avalos, William Dever, Bart Ehrman are, along with so many others. [Craig is probably best to be thought of as an apologist, not a Biblical scholar]. And anthropology is, well, the clincher, or is it psychology, or paleontology, or geology, or astronomy, or any one of a number of other disciplines of learning?
I've learned a great deal while Blogging these few years. Just like flat earthers are ignorant so also are believers. But there's more to it since being ignorant doesn't exactly describe such a person. Believers are blinded by their passions because they have been brainwashed by their culture. Our culturally inherited beliefs are what we use to “see” with. These inherited beliefs are much like our very eyes themselves, so it’s extremely difficult to examine that which we use to see with. We cannot easily pluck out our eyes to look at them since we use our eyes to see. But we must do this if we truly want to examine that which we were taught to believe. It’s a simple fact that brainwashed people do not know they have been brainwashed!
And there is no parity with an atheist here, so don't say "you too." For the real debate is NOT WITH ATHEISM AT ALL! The real debate is between the Christianities of the past and today along with the debates between a plethora of Christianities in today’s world. Then this debate kicks into high gear between the myriad of religions themselves. An atheist is someone who simply doesn't think that a particular set of religious claims is correct. I came by my atheism as the result of a process of elimination, as most atheists have done. Christians are on that same road too. They just fail to understand that the same kinds of requirements they demand of other Christianities and of other religions they reject also apply to their own beliefs.
As I’ve said before, I think I have solved the Christian puzzle.
21 comments:
"An atheist is someone who simply doesn't think that a particular set of religious claims is correct. I came by my atheism as the result of a process of elimination, as most atheists have done. Christians are on that same road too. They just fail to understand that the same kinds of requirements they demand of other Christianities and of other religions they reject also apply to their own beliefs."
The idea that an atheist and a Christian are both atheists, with the atheist simply believing in one fewer god is an ignorant (just my opinion) non sequitur. As far as I'm aware, Nobody thinks that because many once well-established scientific assertions have been abandoned as false that all scientific assertions ought to be abandoned as false or will be abandoned as false. Why should it be any different in matters of religion?" You (ignorantly?) neglect the possibility that Christians do apply the same standards to their own faith as to others and simply come to a different conclusion than you do.
Nobody thinks that because many once well-established scientific assertions have been abandoned as false that all scientific assertions ought to be abandoned as false or will be abandoned as false. Why should it be any different in matters of religion?
Because religions are not based on the same principles as science.
"Because religions are not based on the same principles as science."
This sentence is drafted in too sloppy a fashion to deal with in much depth, but we have the same tools to evaluate religions as we have to evaluate the sciences (and history, philosophy, etc.).
You (ignorantly?) neglect the possibility that Christians do apply the same standards to their own faith as to others and simply come to a different conclusion than you do.
I think John is arguing that the different conclusions they come to are biased, not that they do not come to different conclusions.
For example, I ran across writings of "skeptical Christians" thought that brass statues in the image of those who died of natural causes or committed suicide could not heal the sick. However, other religions do not have such conditional "beliefs." As such, their skepticism appears to based more on a difference in philosophy or tradition, rather than metaphysics.
we have the same tools to evaluate religions as we have to evaluate the sciences
I'm sorry, what? Which tools are these? Are there experiments that Christians perform to evaluate the claims of their religion? Is there a rigid system to judge the results of such a procedure as valid?
"Christian, you are ignorant. Sorry, but that’s what I honestly think. Maybe by my saying this it will make you pause. Just become either an anthropologist, a psychologist, a scientist, a real Biblical scholar, or an archaeologist and it’ll help you appreciate what I’m saying. Yes, there are conservative believers in those fields, I know, but the ratio of conservative believers to liberals and non-believers is much much less in these fields of learning than the general populace (and Biblical scholars started out being conservative)...But there's more to it since being ignorant doesn't exactly describe such a person. Believers are blinded by their passions because they have been brainwashed by their culture."
I'm not sure what to make of this. John, you very frequently in your arguments seem to take away with one hand what you give with the other, a version of the 'death by qualification.' This is a perfect example: you claim on the one hand that ignorance is the problem for *the Christian* (not for the conservative Christian alone), and then acknowledge that there are conservative Christians (and, of course, many more moderate and liberal Christians) who are not ignorant, yet still believe. But if this is the case, how can the problem be ignorance? Francis Collins and Ken Miller know far more about biology than you or I ever will, yet they believe in god. John Polkinghorne and Arno Penzias know far more about physics than you or I ever will, yet they believe. Bruce Metzger was a much more accomplished biblical scholar than your or I, or than his student, Bart Ehrman, ever will be, yet Metzger remained a believer. Armand Nicholi knows much more about psychology than you or I ever will, yet he remains a believer. I could go on and on, as you well know. And, as you well know, appealing to the ratio of believers to non-believers (which differs in all these fields) gets you next to nowhere.
Now I know you then go on to say it's not just ignorance, but brainwashing, and that people who are brainwashed don't know that they're brainwashed. But then the problem isn't ignorance of a particular field, but how we interpret the data from any field. In other words, the problem isn't that Christians are ignorant of some field of knowledge, but that they're ignorant that they've been brainwashed. This, however, puts you into quite a messy position: I'm willing to bet that most of the people I mentioned above know the arguments against their beliefs as well as you do (and in some cases better) -- therefore, what justifies the claim that they're brainwashed as opposed to the possibility that they've simply come to a different conclusion from the one you have after using their impressive intellects to the best of their ability? Well, nothing, it seems to me -- nothing, that is, unless you want to argue that your position is the only rational one, but I don't think you want to do that (you are, after all, an agnostic atheist, as you say). So why not just admit that different people of similar intellectual abilities can, after looking at the same evidence and reviewing the same arguments, come to opposing, but rational conclusions when it comes to religious questions?
In short, the 'ignorance' and 'brainwashing' explanations are both contrary to the data we have and just too darn simplistic.
Eric said...I'm willing to bet that most of the people I mentioned above know the arguments against their beliefs as well as you do (and in some cases better)
I really don't think so at all in some cases specific to what I've studied. How many of them are willing to test what they believe by taking the Debunking Christianity Challenge? If Christians were really interested in the truth then those books would fly off the shelves. What I have learned is that many apologists have not even read many of the best books critical to their faith. Which of those ten books have YOU read Eric? Which ones have you read other than those books?
All you've shown is that there are individual people who can stay believers in one of those fields of study, but the overwhelming trend among scholars in those fields is toward doubt. Those are the facts. This means that it's a person's personality and sociological makeup that causes an individual to continue to believe in the midst of the evidence against what s/he believes. If the trend was towards belief then you might have a point. But it isn't, not by a long shot. Want to take a stab at explaining why this is so? My explanation is brainwashing, fear of hell, and fear of the loss of social relationships.
Almost every person who has become an atheist after embracing faith describes it as a terrible ordeal, much like pulling their teeth out. They fear hell, and they fear what their families will think and do to them. It's best not to question the status quo and simply ignore doubt. You have no argument here, period. You don't realize you've been given a culturally adopted set of eyes through which you see everything. You just cannot see any differently. You don't even want to try do you. Does that describe you? Yes or no? If yes, that is a mark of a brainwashed person (and I think I'll write more about the charateristics of this later). If no, then take the debunking Christianity challenge. Period. Start with the book many are saying is the "definitive" refutation of Christianity, "a tour de force," the "golden standard" for such books of its kind.
"You don't realize you've been given a culturally adopted set of eyes through which you see everything. You just cannot see any differently. You don't even want to try do you. Does that describe you? Yes or no?"
Of course I realize this, but you can't take this position too far, or it's self defeating. If all of our beliefs are culturally conditioned (I know you haven't said this; I'm just making a fundamental point with this extreme position serving as a launching board), then so is the belief that all beliefs are culturally conditioned. And if it's not the case that all of our beliefs are culturally conditioned (which I'm confident both you and I believe to be the case), and if some of us can in a sense 'rise above' our conditioning (though not completely, of course -- there is no view from nowhere), then why conclude that those who do must reach conclusions that oppose the beliefs they began with? There's nothing incoherent in the conjunction of these two propositions: 'S believes that P because of S's cultural conditioning,' and, 'It's true that P.'
As for me, I was raised in a nominally Catholic home -- and it was very nominal! I was baptized and made my first communion, but we almost never went to church (literally no more than two or three times a year, and some years not at all), and we never spoke about religion at home. I only went to confession twice while I lived at home. I believed in god, but that belief just wasn't very important to me.
When I was in my mid-teens, I began studying philosophy on my own. Like most people, I began with popular (and bad) books, such as Russell's History of Western Philosophy and Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Under their influence, I quickly became an atheist, and began devouring books on atheism. I was influenced by the usual suspects here as well -- Sagan, Dawkins (the Blind Watchmaker was particularly significant), etc. -- and also by some serious philosophers (Nielson, Flew, Mackie, Martin, etc.). I *loved* to debate Christians (again, mostly nominal ones; I rarely, if ever, encountered any other type) -- it was just so easy, and I got a kick out of the fact that it seemed that I, a youngster, had thought more deeply and more cogently about the most important questions than all of these older, more experienced and more mature folks had.
However, as I began to study philosophy academically, I realized that most of my core beliefs (about empiricism, naturalism, etc.) rested on grounds that were not nearly as solid as I had arrogantly supposed. I came to see that empiricism is a logical dead end, that very few, if any, philosophic arguments can be 'proven' (since all substantial ones contain premises that themselves need to be justified, which in turn requires the justification of those new premises, and so on ad infinitum; almost no such argument concludes with a self evident premise, and those that are said to do so are disputed with powerful arguments as well, that in turn contain premises in need of justification, and so on all over again). This bewildering intellectual experience caused me to rethink my atheism (I was a positive atheist), and to settle for agnosticism (though not in a strong sense, i.e. we cannot know, but in a weaker sense, i.e. I do not know).
The arguments and influences that ultimately lead me to my current position (I consider myself to be an agnostic theist -- I don't claim knowledge, at least not in the traditional sense of JTB, but that my beliefs are rational) are multifarious, and I'm sure you've heard them all before. There is the emphasis on inference to the best explanation that some theists make (e.g. when considering questions such as, why is there something rather than nothing, or our moral sense, etc.); there is a deep understanding of some of the classical Thomistic arguments (as opposed to the caricatures we see all the time); there was the realization that theism doesn't conflict with any current scientifically established (to the extent that they can be established) conclusion; there is the work of biblical scholars such as Metzger and Wright, and even the conclusions that skeptical scholars like Crossan and Ehrman will grant (let me quote from Ehrman's new book: "Here I want to stress a point that I will be reiterating, with vigor, in my final chapter. I decidedly do *not* think that historical criticism necessarily leads to a loss of faith."); there are a host of assorted arguments that are quite good offered by any number of philosophers (e.g. Craig, Plantinga, Swinburne, Adams, Alston, Reppert, Odeberg, Garrigou-Lagrange, Van Inwagen, Feser, Adler, etc.); there is the instinctive -- and therefore necessarily personal -- appeal that great literature, poetry, music and art makes to my 'sense of life'; there is the deep wisdom (which I take to be different from rigorously argued for philosophic conclusions) inherent in much of the Christian inspired works of literature and art, and the (often)superficial and 'thin' quality of what atheists write; and so on. Now, I don't think that any of this is rationally compelling (in the sense that if someone is rational, s/he must agree with me), *but I do think it's rational*, and, to me, as I judge the arguments, the evidence, and my immediate experience of the world, it's more rational than the alternatives (though not by any large margin; incidentally, even skeptics like Shermer will grant that the arguments are, on the whole, equally balanced). I don't have all the answers (by a long shot), I'm open to changing my mind (like you, I can say, hey, I've done it before), and I suspect (though I could be wrong) that I'll remain a curious, searching *agnostic* something or other for the rest of my life.
BTW, I've read 1,2,3,8 and 10 on the DCC -- and many, many more books defending atheism or critiquing Christianity.
"All you've shown is that there are individual people who can stay believers in one of those fields of study, but the overwhelming trend among scholars in those fields is toward doubt."
But that's all I'd have to show to prove that the problem can't be ignorance. (The direction of the trend is next to irrelvant; at best it's extremely weak as a premise, especially because almost none of these fields deals directly with the truth claims of theism). If you want to claim that believers are believers because they don't understand science, I can point to Mcgrath or Polkinghorne. If you want to claim it's because of a lack of knowledge of other fields, I can point to others. And, since the people I listed aren't simply educated, but brilliant, you can't say it's because they're stupid. And you can't claim that one needs knowledge of all these areas, since that's simply impossible. However, I'd add that someone like Mcgrath knows, I'd wager, more about science, theology, biblical criticism, philosophy and the social sciences than either you or I -- and he also was once an atheist. As philosophers say, an actual proves a possible, so Mcgrath proves that it's possible to be an educated *convert* (i.e. not initially brainwashed) to theistic belief.
Why not concede the simple and obvious point -- equally intelligent and informed people, with equally honorable intentions, can disagree about these questions, and do so on rational grounds?
"Why not concede the simple and obvious point -- equally intelligent and informed people, with equally honorable intentions, can disagree about these questions, and do so on rational grounds"
Because the theistic, and esp. the Christian conclusions and propposed reasoning are not just slightly stupid, they are not just monumentally stupid, they begin to push the envelope of what one might consider the theoretical boundaries of stupidity. That's why. Christinity is approaching infinite stupiditude. It's that wrong.
Stevec I rather think of the Christian beliefs as wildly improbable or bizzaro.
Eric said…but you can't take this position too far, or it's self defeating.
Eric all of our beliefs are not culturally conditioned otherwise creatures like chimps, spiders, sharks, and bears would starve for lack of knowledge on how to capture prey. Their ability to capture prey is based upon a shared belief in the general reliability of their senses. From this properly basic belief and from the properly basic belief that the present resembles the past the animal and human kingdoms have been able to survive in the world. Logic is what you speak of when you say something is self-defeating. But what you should really be talking about is that if an animal refuses to trust his senses then he will die. Species who trusted their senses will survive. And that’s pretty much all we can say about this. To ask whether we can trust our senses or whether the past resembles to present takes us deeply into philosophy. In the end we really may not be able to know with any degree of assuredness that we can. All we can say is that trusting these things works for us if we want to survive. Do you want to survive, then trust them. The only way a self-defeating charge can work is if we agree to say these beliefs must correspond to reality. But surely you know the philosophical debate about the correspondence theory of truth. It’s under siege, if you didn’t know.
Your personal story, while interesting, is anecdotal evidence. No matter what claim I make there will always be someone who says, like you did. “hey, that’s doesn’t represent me!” That’s equivalent to the newspaper reporter who was stunned when Ronald Reagan won the Presidential election by a landslide and quipped, “I didn’t know anyone who voted for him.” ;-)
Eric said…The arguments and influences that ultimately lead me to my current position (I consider myself to be an agnostic theist -- I don't claim knowledge, at least not in the traditional sense of JTB, but that my beliefs are rational) are multifarious, and I'm sure you've heard them all before….I'll remain a curious, searching *agnostic* something or other for the rest of my life.
Well, if you read the banner at DC then my arguments may not be geared toward you. I say if the show fits wear it. If it doesn’t you have no right to complain because my goals have been stated and are very clear. My goal is to create more people just like you already are, thinkers no longer tied exclusively to an ancient barbaric superstitious text. You have arrived at where I’m pushing every evangelical theist to be. That’s my goal. Now you must think on your own, at least, if I understand you correctly.
Eric…But that's all I'd have to show to prove that the problem can't be ignorance. (The direction of the trend is next to irrelevant; at best it's extremely weak as a premise, especially because almost none of these fields deals directly with the truth claims of theism).
Not so, not when it comes to beliefs for which there is no hard cold scientific evidence to them, like political, ethical and religious beliefs. In such discipline of learning human knowledge grows very slowly and there are setbacks for hundreds of years. But it’s fairly obvious that some ethical and political ideas are the ones for the future, and it’s pretty clear that in the previous disciplines of learning I mentioned (anthropology, psychology...) the trend is very clear. You must account for that trend. At least it should give you pause.
Eric said…As philosophers say, an actual proves a possible, so McGrath proves that it's possible to be an educated *convert* (i.e. not initially brainwashed) to theistic belief.
You are pointing me to an exception, McGrath, who is quite knowledgeable about such matters, more than I, but would you mind trying to explain the trend, or the rule? As a rule people in these fields of learning tend to move toward doubt. Why is that? Take a stab at it. Why is it that Universities once started to propagate the gospel are now bastions of secularism and that in each generation new universities and book publishing companies are started to overcome the liberal tendencies of the generation that went before? Since there are no cold hard scientific facts about these ideas trends are very important and could even be decisive if someone were to consider where they point to.
Eric said…Why not concede the simple and obvious point -- equally intelligent and informed people, with equally honorable intentions, can disagree about these questions, and do so on rational grounds?
Brainwashed deluded and paranoid schizophrenics can be very rational. All it takes is one or more false assumptions. No I do not claim believers are irrational at all.
By definition, if two people disagree on some proposition, then at least one of three cases must obtain:
a) at least one person is mistaken or ignorant about some fact
b) at least one person is reasoning incorrectly: he is thinking irrationally
b) the proposition is not truth-apt; it is a matter of opinion.
That's what rationality means. To argue that two rational equally well-informed people can disagree about religion, is to argue that religion is a matter of opinion... which is a conclusion that most atheists would happily accept.
Eric: You say that you "came to see that empiricism is a logical dead end."
It's granted that we cannot empirically prove any propositions about the world with deductive certainty. But so what? We can't prove any propositions about the world with deductive certainty by any means whatsoever.
Any purely deductivist account of reality must rest on axioms, but by definition an axiom is not itself deduced; an axiom cannot be established with deductive certainty.
Logic alone, deductivism and certainty are themselves dead ends as means to effectively describe the world. Logic is an effective tool, but it must be subordinated to a larger process.
Note to Loftus: The Proper Basicality of Christian beliefs is trivially well-established. The problem is that Proper Basicality is itself an inept and entirely deficient epistemic basis.
"a) at least one person is mistaken or ignorant about some fact
b) at least one person is reasoning incorrectly: he is thinking irrationally
c) the proposition is not truth-apt; it is a matter of opinion.
That's what rationality means. To argue that two rational equally well-informed people can disagree about religion, is to argue that religion is a matter of opinion... which is a conclusion that most atheists would happily accept."
BarefootBum, I think that the problem is that it's not always clear whether an issue is best categorized as an instance of (a) or (c). Also, a lot will turn on what you mean by 'fact,' 'opinion' and 'truth-apt.' (You don't seem to be using the term 'truth apt' as philosophers have generally used it, i.e. as a proposition that's capable of being either true or false; I get the sense that you mean something along the lines of 'a proposition is truth apt just in case we can determine its truth'; if I'm wrong about how you're using the term, please correct me. However, I'll address both interpretations, starting with the former.) For example, it would seem to be a fact that either god exists or he doesn't, just as it would seem to be a fact that either there is life elsewhere in the universe or there isn't. Now, you might want to claim that the former is not 'truth-apt' while the latter is, but this is not obviously the case in at least two senses: first, if the general theistic worldview is correct, then such belief is truth-apt, though we'll only know for sure after death, and therefore to claim that it isn't simpliciter is to beg the question; and second, the absence of a proof that X is the case doesn't entail the absence of the possibility for such a proof (e.g. Fermat's last theorem prior to Wiles). Or, take some historical puzzle, e.g. whether Lizzie Borden killed her parents in the late 19th century. Now, whether she did so is a matter of fact, but we'll most likely never know the truth.
Now, if you are using the term 'truth apt' in it's traditional sense, then you seem to be guilty of a non-sequitur, largely because you seem to have confused the the fact that while it's sufficient for a proposition to express an opinion that it be non-truth apt, it's not necessary. In other words, 'P expresses an opinion' doesn't entail that P is non-truth apt (You say, "To argue that two rational equally well-informed people can disagree about religion, is to argue that religion is a matter of opinion" and say in (c) that if a matter is not truth apt, it's a matter of opinion; of course, it doesn't follow from this that all matters of opinion are not truth apt, and hence religious questions could be both matters of opinion and truth apt).
For reasons such as these (inter alia), I don't think it's clear that theistic belief can be so easily reduced to a matter of opinion that is non truth apt (on both interpretations).
You don't seem to be using the term 'truth apt' as philosophers have generally used it, i.e. as a proposition that's capable of being either true or false; I get the sense that you mean something along the lines of 'a proposition is truth apt just in case we can determine its truth'
I mean the former; the traditional philosophical usage is incoherent. More specifically, I mean a statement is truth apt just in case we can in principle determine its truth (even if it's difficult in practice to determine its truth.)
if the general theistic worldview is correct, then such belief is truth-apt, though we'll only know for sure after death
You're still alive (at least I have good evidence for such a belief). Do you as a living person claim knowledge that you assert can be obtained only after death... if at all?
the absence of a proof that X is the case doesn't entail the absence of the possibility for such a proof (e.g. Fermat's last theorem prior to Wiles). Or, take some historical puzzle, e.g. whether Lizzie Borden killed her parents in the late 19th century. Now, whether she did so is a matter of fact, but we'll most likely never know the truth.
This is a pure straw man, equivocating the distinction between an (epistemically) truth-apt statement and a statement known to be true or false.
"I mean a statement is truth apt just in case we can in principle determine its truth (even if it's difficult in practice to determine its truth.)"
If this is what you mean, then I fail to see how you could claim that the question of god's existence isn't truth apt. Take Keith Parson's response to WLC during a debate of theirs: if he were to see "Believe or burn -- and that means you, Parsons!" in the sky (I think it was either by way of a formation of stars or galaxies), and if it were verified
by others, he would believe. Now, this is obviously silly, but notice your own criterion (if interpreted strictly) -- it's possible *in principle* given how god is conceived. Now, as I said, this is obviously silly, but that isn't relevant -- it still fits your criterion, as you have stated it, and philosophers often use silly examples like this to show the limitations of some criterion. Perhaps you should narrow and more precisely define your 'truth-aptness' criterion so we can determine whether it's reasonable.
"Do you as a living person claim knowledge that you assert can be obtained only after death... if at all?"
You've missed the point here. The issue isn't whether I or anyone else who is now alive knows what happens after death, but whether the claim that if theism is true, then we'll know it's true after death meets the truth-aptness criterion you've posited. Again, it's an extreme example, but extreme examples usually make the relevant points most clearly.
"This is a pure straw man, equivocating the distinction between an (epistemically) truth-apt statement and a statement known to be true or false."
No, it's not a straw man. Remember, I was suggesting these examples while working with the first of two possible understandings of how you were using the term 'truth apt'; you've conceded that you weren't using it in its traditional sense, so, rather than being charged with knocking down straw men, you should be thanking me for attempting to apply to too oft ignored principle of charity to your argument. If you recall, I even asked you for clarification and apologized in advance if I went on to use the term in a way that differed from your usage.
If this is what you mean, then I fail to see how you could claim that the question of god's existence isn't truth apt. Take Keith Parson's response to WLC during a debate of theirs: if he were to see "Believe or burn -- and that means you, Parsons!" in the sky (I think it was either by way of a formation of stars or galaxies), and if it were verified
by others, he would believe.
In that sense, yes, the existence of God is falsifiable... and, because we have seen nothing like that, the God (in the sense of a being that causes such cosmic writing to appear) is proven false.
f theism is true, then we'll know it's true after death meets the truth-aptness criterion you've posited.
In which case, I'll decide after I'm dead, when the evidence is available.
"In that sense, yes, the existence of God is falsifiable... and, because we have seen nothing like that, the God (in the sense of a being that causes such cosmic writing to appear) is proven false....In which case, I'll decide after I'm dead, when the evidence is available."
BarefootBum, you're confusing the issue here: we're not discussing whether god exists, but whether propositions about god's existence are truth apt (in your idiosyncratic sense of the term).
I'll certainly accept a definition of God that's truth-apt and false.
As to an epistemic definition of truth-aptness, the field of philosophy is so varied that I cannot believe I'm the only person to take such a stance. I therefore interpret your use of "idiosyncratic" as "not supporting your own argument."
"By my lights I see the belief in Elves and the belief in the Christian God as resting on the same foundations--culturally adopted ignorant and delusional beliefs which have no place among intelligent and highly educated scientifically minded people."
Well, there is the problem isn't it? "By your lights"?
Are "your lights" all seeing, all knowing and infallible? Because if they are not then you could be wrong.
And if you are not all-knowing then you could also be wrong (because there are things you don't know).
You don't have all the evidence, therefore you cannot make an accurate decision as to whether your claims and "answers" are valid or not.
Here is the problem wih your belief system (and the contradictions in it) :
You are all too ready to parrot the same old arguments and justifications as though they are "fact" without examining them for yourself, independent of everyone else and what they tell you "is so" or "isn't so".
You are just as guilty of that as the false hypocritical Christians whom you condemn for the very same thing (accepting things "as so" on blind faith simply because someone told you so).
What you are really doing is engaging in "straw man" arguments with people who don't know what they are talking about.
You do this so you can get the answer that you want from the "debate".
If you really want the answer as to whether there is a God or not and Christian beliefs are valid or not, you need to ask the question HONESTLY and accept the REAL ANSWER, not a pre-determined answer which you have decided is "to your liking" before you even ask the question.
That is not honest and it is not a debate.
So, do you want "THE ANSWER" or "YOUR ANSWER"? Because you cannot have both.
That is the REAL QUESTION you should be asking yourself - or you are wasting your time (and ours) with a lot of phoney intellectually invalid posturing.
Post a Comment