Most Christians would say the same thing John. Besides that however Avalos does believe in plenty of things without evidence, as any person with a minor knowledge of epistomology would concede.
GB, to say I believe I'm not dreaming right now without evidence to the contrary is something we all do. Avalos isn't talking about that kind of knowledge claim. Context. Context. Context.
He's talking about a whole worldview, one that claims such things as a woman who turned into a pillar of salt, or a Pool of Siloam that healed the first person who entered it after the waters were stirred, or a person who supposedly was raised up from the dead.
You cannot say there is any parity between these sets of beliefs at all, otherwise you'd have to grant that Mormons and Muslims can believe without evidence too.
And while you surely disagree with Avalos when he says there is no evidence, your comment does nothing to argue against him.
Your comments are almost always lame. You don't address the points being made in their context. No wonder you believe! That's the kind of thinking skills it takes to believe like you do.
Everyone who voted that teaching creation and religion just to show what religion teaches is against the constitution does not know the constitution...
To add to the discussion between John and gordonblood: it's not just that there's no evidence for Christianity; most saliently for the purposes of your discussion, there is good evidence against it. Based on Avalos' book, he would agree.
So to make the Plantinga-style point that gordonblood does here, about rational belief without (propositional) evidence is beside the point (and in any case Planting,a is wrong, but that is a matter for another discussion).
Dr. Avalos said, "I'm not going to believe in anything for which there is no evidence."
That pretty much sums it up!
So then he should have some evidence that the proposition, "Only believe what has evidence" is worth believing.
His arguments weren't any good when he was a Christian? I don't doubt that. However, as an atheist he still doesn't have any good arguments. What changed?
So then he should have some evidence that the proposition, "Only believe what has evidence" is worth believing.
Sure, in these types of matters, yes.
His arguments weren't any good when he was a Christian? I don't doubt that. However, as an atheist he still doesn't have any good arguments. What changed?
The same thing goes for C.S. Lewis then. What's your point here? As far as I understand what you're saying, it's ignorant to the core.
Hi John, I think IrishFarmer wants to be an analytic philosopher so he can learn as many sophistic tactics as he can to enable him to slip a red herring into a discussion thereby exerting some influence over the dialog to help avoid threatening his viewpoint.
Kind of an intellecutal "oh look, what is that behind you!"
As "a budding analytic philosopher" he should know about context, defeasible reasoning, the weight of values and importance and the dialectical nature of discussions.
It seems as if he is using the tactic to keep making claims and specious rebuttals on the opponent to try make their position look weak to an uninformed audience and to find a red herring tasty enough to chase.
Yes Lee, exactly. And to think Irish Farmer is a non-credentialed hack, which I think he'd even admit. And he's basically calling a Harvard trained seasoned Biblical scholar who has written peer reviewed articles and books ignorant.
I heard Dr. Avalos on the Infidel Guy show and his story is great! If someone with the background and education as Dr. Avalos can reject christianity, it should cause all believers to pause and reflect on why they believe.
And he's basically calling a Harvard trained seasoned Biblical scholar who has written peer reviewed articles and books ignorant.
And if anyone thinks this automatically makes him correct, should listen to the debate with WLC, in which Avalos comes off as a petulant, spiteful, ignorant little man.
He denies inerrancy, yet appeals to the Bible to support his leftist ideology. Loftus provides a defense of Avalos' epistemology he was unable to provide for himself in the debate.
So then he should have some evidence that the proposition, "Only believe what has evidence" is worth believing.
Sure, in these types of matters, yes.
That was a trick question. The principle which demands evidence, does not itself have any evidence. Which makes it self-refuting.
Not to mention you would have to throw science out the window. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to do that. :)
His arguments weren't any good when he was a Christian? I don't doubt that. However, as an atheist he still doesn't have any good arguments. What changed?
The same thing goes for C.S. Lewis then. What's your point here? As far as I understand what you're saying, it's ignorant to the core.
The difference is that Christians don't have to rely solely on so-called rational arguments. Atheists do. So when they claim they left the faith because they didn't see any good evidence, and then accept atheism on the basis of poor reasoning, I think its pretty ironic.
Hi John, I think IrishFarmer wants to be an analytic philosopher so he can learn as many sophistic tactics as he can to enable him to slip a red herring into a discussion thereby exerting some influence over the dialog to help avoid threatening his viewpoint.
Wow. Way to take down my argument! I didn't know that psychoanalysis, coupled with a shallow appeal to motive is a valid way to respond to someone's argument.
As "a budding analytic philosopher" he should know about context, defeasible reasoning, the weight of values and importance and the dialectical nature of discussions.
And what does any of this have to do with the fact that Avalos' epistemology is broken?
It seems as if he is using the tactic to keep making claims and specious rebuttals on the opponent to try make their position look weak to an uninformed audience and to find a red herring tasty enough to chase.
I'm convinced.
Yes Lee, exactly. And to think Irish Farmer is a non-credentialed hack,
I don't get you. Sometimes you seem nice enough, other times you're a jerk. I can't make heads or tails of you.
And yes, I am a non-credentialed hack. What's interesting is that, despite all your smoke and mirrors in these past few comments, neither of you were able to refute the argument of an "uncredentialed hack". So, what does that say about you?
And he's basically calling a Harvard trained seasoned Biblical scholar who has written peer reviewed articles and books ignorant.
On matters of epistemology and religion, yes.
You could always try proving me wrong instead of just asserting that I am.
I heard Dr. Avalos on the Infidel Guy show and his story is great! If someone with the background and education as Dr. Avalos can reject christianity, it should cause all believers to pause and reflect on why they believe.
His level of education isn't entirely relevant to his arguments, which generally are extremely poor.
Irish Farmer said...yes, I am a non-credentialed hack.
That's what I said!
May I suggest you have a humbler attitude when saying Dr. Avalos' doesn't know a good argument when he sees one, and that's exactly what you said.
I can indeed be a jerk with "non-credentialed hacks" who act like they are more knowledgable than they are. This riles me to no end. If you want a kindler, gentler John then don't act this way, okay?
Avalos could press upon you so many arguments that you might not even understand, much less answer, that you would know who the teacher is and who the student is very quickly.
If you were to attend the university where he teaches you would not treat him this way in class.
BTW I'm sure he's reading this and thinking to himself "Why does John bother with ignorant people like this."
As Plantinga's colleague, Phillip Quinn (now deceased) pointed out long ago, one can use Plantinga's own preferred, Chisholmian particularist, inductive method of justifying general epistemic principles to justify a version of evidentialism that avoids Plantinga's charge of being self-refuting:
"We must assemble examples of beliefs and conditions such that the former are obviously properly basic in the latter, and examples of beliefs and conditions such that the former are obviously not properly basic in the latter. We must then frame hypotheses as to the necessary and sufficient conditions of proper basicality and test these hypotheses by reference to those examples."[1]
Using this particularist, inductive method, that Plantinga himself endorses (as does J.P. Moreland, by the way -- he's a Chisholm-style particularist), one can justify a form of evidentialism that allows for non-propositional evidence (e.g., perception, memory, etc.), in addition to propositional evidence, and one can do so in a way that (i) avoids Plantinga's other objections to evidentialism in general and classical/narrow foundationalism in particular, and (ii) yet precludes theistic belief from being properly basic. See also Christian philosopher James F. Sennett's dissertation-turned-monograph, Modality, Probability, and Rationality: A Critical Assessment of Alvin Plantinga's Philosophy, on this point.
----- Notes:
[1] Plantinga, Alvin. "Reason and Belief in God", in Faith and Rationality: Reason and Belief in God (U of Notre Dame Press, 1983), p. 76.
BTW and for the record Irish Farmer, I have never treated a Christian scholar with the same disrespect you have shown toward Avalos...not on this blog, in my book, or in an email exchange (and I have had plenty of them). Even at that, as somewhat of a scholar myself I have earned the right to do so...you have not...and yet I don't do it.
Remember this, they have all earned our respect, even if we disagree, and even if we might think their arguments are wrong to the point of stupidity.
Hi IrishFarmer, okay, here's the answer to your 'trick question' if it makes you feel better. The principle which demands evidence, does not itself have any evidence. It depends on what you call evidence. Do you believe in Santa? No? why not, there is so much evidence out there to support it.
the point that you make, is in the context of an interview, when it is understood that he is going to say whats on his mind and not provide justification, because it would be edited out anyway. Context, context, context.
the next thing is that you are welcome to believe anything you want to, but what is it worth?
The only real evidence there is for god is the self referential testimony of the holy spirit, right?
lets rephrase it in a thoughtful way. Believing in things that are non-falsifiable is more risky than believing in things that are falsifiable, right? It is important to minimize risk, it is a good principle. Want to challenge that?
you know this, but in my view are being deliberately deceptive, sophistic, by trying to make the worse argument look better (gee that sounds familiar). Either that or you need to spend more time on the books and less time on the internet.
May I suggest you have a humbler attitude when saying Dr. Avalos' doesn't know a good argument when he sees one, and that's exactly what you said.
What do you want me to do? Not point out a bad argument when I see one?
I can indeed be a jerk with "non-credentialed hacks" who act like they are more knowledgable than they are. This riles me to no end. If you want a kindler, gentler John then don't act this way, okay?
All I did was point out an error that I saw, as well as generally poor reasoning on Avalos' part.
I never claimed I knew everything, John. You're putting words in my mouth.
Avalos could press upon you so many arguments that you might not even understand, much less answer, that you would know who the teacher is and who the student is very quickly.
Perhaps. I never claimed otherwise. I only claimed that his reasoning that I've seen was rather poor.
If you were to attend the university where he teaches you would not treat him this way in class.
Actually, this may surprise you, but I would have no problem with letting him know.
BTW I'm sure he's reading this and thinking to himself "Why does John bother with ignorant people like this."
I wonder myself.
I've seen a lot of ad hom, from you free thinkers, but I haven't seen a lot of rational thought.
No offense, but it seems you're getting a little too uptight in the case of Avalos. You've come on to my blog and accused me of using poor arguments. Were you just being polite when you did that, while I'm being a complete jerk?
Hi Irishfarmer,
As Plantinga's colleague, Phillip Quinn (now deceased) pointed out long ago, one can use Plantinga's own preferred, Chisholmian particularist, inductive method of justifying general epistemic principles to justify a version of evidentialism that avoids Plantinga's charge of being self-refuting:
Hey. Unfortunately, I haven't had the ability to read Plantinga's writing.
Though now I'm going to have to take the time to digest this new information when I can. Thanks.
BTW and for the record Irish Farmer, I have never treated a Christian scholar with the same disrespect you have shown toward Avalos...not on this blog, in my book, or in an email exchange (and I have had plenty of them). Even at that, as somewhat of a scholar myself I have earned the right to do so...you have not...and yet I don't do it.
Sorry, John. As far as I'm concerned, you could have 30 doctorates for all I care, but nothing really earns you the right to be "rude", or whatever.
I wasn't out to be rude to Avalos. And I get the impression from what little I know, that Avalos has thicker skin than you give him credit for. I'm sure he couldn't care less if I point out any epistemic blunders he makes.
Hi IrishFarmer, okay, here's the answer to your 'trick question' if it makes you feel better. The principle which demands evidence, does not itself have any evidence. It depends on what you call evidence. Do you believe in Santa? No? why not, there is so much evidence out there to support it.
Your evidence for that form of verificationism is that Santa doesn't exist? I don't get it...
the point that you make, is in the context of an interview, when it is understood that he is going to say whats on his mind and not provide justification, because it would be edited out anyway. Context, context, context.
If that filmmaker took that out of context, then he's the worst filmmaker ever. You're not supposed to quote someone if you're changing the meaning of what they're saying.
But regardless, I would give Avalos the benefit of the doubt, except in 100% of cases where I've talked to atheists who also hold to a similar principle, there is no "context" hidden anywhere to change the meaning of their beliefs.
the next thing is that you are welcome to believe anything you want to, but what is it worth?
In my case? Probably not much. :)
The only real evidence there is for god is the self referential testimony of the holy spirit, right?
I don't think so.
lets rephrase it in a thoughtful way. Believing in things that are non-falsifiable is more risky than believing in things that are falsifiable, right? It is important to minimize risk, it is a good principle. Want to challenge that?
Well, I think the principle is shaky, but no I won't challenge it.
you know this, but in my view are being deliberately deceptive, sophistic, by trying to make the worse argument look better (gee that sounds familiar). Either that or you need to spend more time on the books and less time on the internet.
Again, I don't see how any of what you've said disproves my argument.
Exapologist at least understands what it takes to meet someone head on in a matter of ideas.
I would think that the person using personal insults, appeals to motive, and other fallacious arguments would be participating in sophistry moreso than not. But that's just me.
People do seem to get their pants in a twist over epistemology, don't they? It might help to adopt a scientific attitude here. Stop trying to find out what is "true" (Pilate maybe spoke the most sensible words in the entire bible), but what *works*.
One never has to *believe* anything; one never has to make assumptions that cannot be themselves amenable to evidential modification.
As it is, the internal *evidence* in the bible indicates that it cannot be literally true, so we are justified in adopting a critical stance towards what it says. You don't need to be a major league scholar to line up the gospels and see the contradictions. You don't have to be an expert in C1CE Palestinian affairs to know that there were little belief cults and sects springing up all over the shop with various wacky beliefs. You don't need to be an accredited psychologist to know that people will believe all sorts of silly stories and affirm them to the death on the crappest of evidence. You don't need to be a scholar of comparative religion to know that *everyone* feels the "warm fuzzies" about whatever religion they happen to have chosen.
To folks like Bart Ehrman and Hector Avalos and John Loftus (and me, although if they're in the Premiership, I'm in the Saturday morning local kick-around league), they have looked at the evidence, and it is the *evidence* that is wanting.
In this respect, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are correct: "Faith" is the *problem*. It is not a virtue, but the most narcissistic form of vice.
If anything, it is very clear that any *real* god would not reveal itself to humanity through a religious route, since it would (presumably) be aware that that is the stupidest and most dangerous way to approach a human.
Irish Farmer says: So then he should have some evidence that the proposition,'Only believe what has evidence' is worth believing.'"
Irish Farmer is pointing out a problem that I have addressed on pp. 114-15 of EOBS. This is related to an ancient problem of self-referential incoherence for evidentialism and positivist epistemologies.
I have tried to address the issue by pointing out that criticisms of the sort that Irish Farmer cites only work if he himself does not use the very principle he is critiquing. Thus, in asking for “evidence” that the “evidentialist principle” is true, he himself is using the “evidentialist principle.”
Similarly, in justifying historical positivism I have shifted to what I call “presuppositional positivism” which begins with a conditional sentence, instead of any claim of absolute or self evident status for my initial presupposition.
This presuppositional positivism works as long as others also subscribe to the presupposition, and it is usually the case that they do. Thus, any sort of self-referential inconsistency becomes less problematic once you establish that others have also accepted the same condition (e.g., IF sense data and logic can give you reliable information...).
But Irish Farmer, as other similar critics, have not really read my book (or so it appears) and so they are really reacting to a summary statement of my epistemology in an edited video.
Thus, if Irish Farmer has a criticism AFTER reading the relevant section of EOBS, I would be glad to address it then.
One persons opinion. Others, as well educated, and within both the academic and research communities, have come to a diametrically opposed conclusions.
See Paul Vitz: http://tinyurl.com/yab7pe8
Or views from scientists: http://tinyurl.com/y9rlmee
http://tinyurl.com/yatfzr8
http://tinyurl.com/yatfzr8
Francis Crick, founder of DNA, tried to substantiate his atheist views by collaborating with a mathematician to calculate the possibility of DNA coming into existence itself given the known age of the earth. The calculations only concluded that it could not have happened, and he then developed his theory of "panspermia", that the earth was seeded with DNA from another planet.
Believe what you will, but recognize it all comes down to subjective personal evaluations, not evidence at all.
There is no concrete evidence against a God either. All we can reasonably say is the different individuals interprete their empirical existence differently, often citing the same sources as the reasons for their conclusions.
21 comments:
Dr. Avalos said, "I'm not going to believe in anything for which there is no evidence."
That pretty much sums it up!
Most Christians would say the same thing John. Besides that however Avalos does believe in plenty of things without evidence, as any person with a minor knowledge of epistomology would concede.
GB, to say I believe I'm not dreaming right now without evidence to the contrary is something we all do. Avalos isn't talking about that kind of knowledge claim. Context. Context. Context.
He's talking about a whole worldview, one that claims such things as a woman who turned into a pillar of salt, or a Pool of Siloam that healed the first person who entered it after the waters were stirred, or a person who supposedly was raised up from the dead.
You cannot say there is any parity between these sets of beliefs at all, otherwise you'd have to grant that Mormons and Muslims can believe without evidence too.
And while you surely disagree with Avalos when he says there is no evidence, your comment does nothing to argue against him.
Your comments are almost always lame. You don't address the points being made in their context. No wonder you believe! That's the kind of thinking skills it takes to believe like you do.
Take a critical thinking class, and I mean it!
Everyone who voted that teaching creation and religion just to show what religion teaches is against the constitution does not know the constitution...
To add to the discussion between John and gordonblood: it's not just that there's no evidence for Christianity; most saliently for the purposes of your discussion, there is good evidence against it. Based on Avalos' book, he would agree.
So to make the Plantinga-style point that gordonblood does here, about rational belief without (propositional) evidence is beside the point (and in any case Planting,a is wrong, but that is a matter for another discussion).
Dr. Avalos said, "I'm not going to believe in anything for which there is no evidence."
That pretty much sums it up!
So then he should have some evidence that the proposition, "Only believe what has evidence" is worth believing.
His arguments weren't any good when he was a Christian? I don't doubt that. However, as an atheist he still doesn't have any good arguments. What changed?
So then he should have some evidence that the proposition, "Only believe what has evidence" is worth believing.
Sure, in these types of matters, yes.
His arguments weren't any good when he was a Christian? I don't doubt that. However, as an atheist he still doesn't have any good arguments. What changed?
The same thing goes for C.S. Lewis then. What's your point here? As far as I understand what you're saying, it's ignorant to the core.
Hi John,
I think IrishFarmer wants to be an analytic philosopher so he can learn as many sophistic tactics as he can to enable him to slip a red herring into a discussion thereby exerting some influence over the dialog to help avoid threatening his viewpoint.
Kind of an intellecutal "oh look, what is that behind you!"
As "a budding analytic philosopher" he should know about context, defeasible reasoning, the weight of values and importance and the dialectical nature of discussions.
It seems as if he is using the tactic to keep making claims and specious rebuttals on the opponent to try make their position look weak to an uninformed audience and to find a red herring tasty enough to chase.
Yes Lee, exactly. And to think Irish Farmer is a non-credentialed hack, which I think he'd even admit. And he's basically calling a Harvard trained seasoned Biblical scholar who has written peer reviewed articles and books ignorant.
Sheesh.
I contacted Dr. Avalos and he informs me he's been following this blog for some time. He also said he's very much looking forward to reading my book.
There are other important readers of DC. It's both humbling and exciting to know this.
I heard Dr. Avalos on the Infidel Guy show and his story is great! If someone with the background and education as Dr. Avalos can reject christianity, it should cause all believers to pause and reflect on why they believe.
And he's basically calling a Harvard trained seasoned Biblical scholar who has written peer reviewed articles and books ignorant.
And if anyone thinks this automatically makes him correct, should listen to the debate with WLC, in which Avalos comes off as a petulant, spiteful, ignorant little man.
He denies inerrancy, yet appeals to the Bible to support his leftist ideology. Loftus provides a defense of Avalos' epistemology he was unable to provide for himself in the debate.
So then he should have some evidence that the proposition, "Only believe what has evidence" is worth believing.
Sure, in these types of matters, yes.
That was a trick question. The principle which demands evidence, does not itself have any evidence. Which makes it self-refuting.
Not to mention you would have to throw science out the window. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to do that. :)
His arguments weren't any good when he was a Christian? I don't doubt that. However, as an atheist he still doesn't have any good arguments. What changed?
The same thing goes for C.S. Lewis then. What's your point here? As far as I understand what you're saying, it's ignorant to the core.
The difference is that Christians don't have to rely solely on so-called rational arguments. Atheists do. So when they claim they left the faith because they didn't see any good evidence, and then accept atheism on the basis of poor reasoning, I think its pretty ironic.
Hi John,
I think IrishFarmer wants to be an analytic philosopher so he can learn as many sophistic tactics as he can to enable him to slip a red herring into a discussion thereby exerting some influence over the dialog to help avoid threatening his viewpoint.
Wow. Way to take down my argument! I didn't know that psychoanalysis, coupled with a shallow appeal to motive is a valid way to respond to someone's argument.
As "a budding analytic philosopher" he should know about context, defeasible reasoning, the weight of values and importance and the dialectical nature of discussions.
And what does any of this have to do with the fact that Avalos' epistemology is broken?
It seems as if he is using the tactic to keep making claims and specious rebuttals on the opponent to try make their position look weak to an uninformed audience and to find a red herring tasty enough to chase.
I'm convinced.
Yes Lee, exactly. And to think Irish Farmer is a non-credentialed hack,
I don't get you. Sometimes you seem nice enough, other times you're a jerk. I can't make heads or tails of you.
And yes, I am a non-credentialed hack. What's interesting is that, despite all your smoke and mirrors in these past few comments, neither of you were able to refute the argument of an "uncredentialed hack". So, what does that say about you?
And he's basically calling a Harvard trained seasoned Biblical scholar who has written peer reviewed articles and books ignorant.
On matters of epistemology and religion, yes.
You could always try proving me wrong instead of just asserting that I am.
I heard Dr. Avalos on the Infidel Guy show and his story is great! If someone with the background and education as Dr. Avalos can reject christianity, it should cause all believers to pause and reflect on why they believe.
His level of education isn't entirely relevant to his arguments, which generally are extremely poor.
Irish Farmer said...yes, I am a non-credentialed hack.
That's what I said!
May I suggest you have a humbler attitude when saying Dr. Avalos' doesn't know a good argument when he sees one, and that's exactly what you said.
I can indeed be a jerk with "non-credentialed hacks" who act like they are more knowledgable than they are. This riles me to no end. If you want a kindler, gentler John then don't act this way, okay?
Avalos could press upon you so many arguments that you might not even understand, much less answer, that you would know who the teacher is and who the student is very quickly.
If you were to attend the university where he teaches you would not treat him this way in class.
BTW I'm sure he's reading this and thinking to himself "Why does John bother with ignorant people like this."
I wonder myself.
Hi Irishfarmer,
As Plantinga's colleague, Phillip Quinn (now deceased) pointed out long ago, one can use Plantinga's own preferred, Chisholmian particularist, inductive method of justifying general epistemic principles to justify a version of evidentialism that avoids Plantinga's charge of being self-refuting:
"We must assemble examples of beliefs and conditions such that the former are obviously properly basic in the latter, and examples of beliefs and conditions such that the former are obviously not properly basic in the latter. We must then frame hypotheses as to the necessary and sufficient conditions of proper basicality and test these hypotheses by reference to those examples."[1]
Using this particularist, inductive method, that Plantinga himself endorses (as does J.P. Moreland, by the way -- he's a Chisholm-style particularist), one can justify a form of evidentialism that allows for non-propositional evidence (e.g., perception, memory, etc.), in addition to propositional evidence, and one can do so in a way that (i) avoids Plantinga's other objections to evidentialism in general and classical/narrow foundationalism in particular, and (ii) yet precludes theistic belief from being properly basic. See also Christian philosopher James F. Sennett's dissertation-turned-monograph, Modality, Probability, and Rationality: A Critical Assessment of Alvin Plantinga's Philosophy, on this point.
-----
Notes:
[1] Plantinga, Alvin. "Reason and Belief in God", in Faith and Rationality: Reason and Belief in God (U of Notre Dame Press, 1983), p. 76.
BTW and for the record Irish Farmer, I have never treated a Christian scholar with the same disrespect you have shown toward Avalos...not on this blog, in my book, or in an email exchange (and I have had plenty of them). Even at that, as somewhat of a scholar myself I have earned the right to do so...you have not...and yet I don't do it.
Remember this, they have all earned our respect, even if we disagree, and even if we might think their arguments are wrong to the point of stupidity.
Hi IrishFarmer,
okay, here's the answer to your 'trick question' if it makes you feel better.
The principle which demands evidence, does not itself have any evidence.
It depends on what you call evidence. Do you believe in Santa? No? why not, there is so much evidence out there to support it.
the point that you make, is in the context of an interview, when it is understood that he is going to say whats on his mind and not provide justification, because it would be edited out anyway. Context, context, context.
the next thing is that you are welcome to believe anything you want to, but what is it worth?
The only real evidence there is for god is the self referential testimony of the holy spirit, right?
lets rephrase it in a thoughtful way.
Believing in things that are non-falsifiable is more risky than believing in things that are falsifiable, right? It is important to minimize risk, it is a good principle. Want to challenge that?
you know this, but in my view are being deliberately deceptive, sophistic, by trying to make the worse argument look better (gee that sounds familiar). Either that or you need to spend more time on the books and less time on the internet.
arf, arf, pant, pant, red herring chased.
Loftus: "That's what I said!"
Ok. And I was confirming what you said.
May I suggest you have a humbler attitude when saying Dr. Avalos' doesn't know a good argument when he sees one, and that's exactly what you said.
What do you want me to do? Not point out a bad argument when I see one?
I can indeed be a jerk with "non-credentialed hacks" who act like they are more knowledgable than they are. This riles me to no end. If you want a kindler, gentler John then don't act this way, okay?
All I did was point out an error that I saw, as well as generally poor reasoning on Avalos' part.
I never claimed I knew everything, John. You're putting words in my mouth.
Avalos could press upon you so many arguments that you might not even understand, much less answer, that you would know who the teacher is and who the student is very quickly.
Perhaps. I never claimed otherwise. I only claimed that his reasoning that I've seen was rather poor.
If you were to attend the university where he teaches you would not treat him this way in class.
Actually, this may surprise you, but I would have no problem with letting him know.
BTW I'm sure he's reading this and thinking to himself "Why does John bother with ignorant people like this."
I wonder myself.
I've seen a lot of ad hom, from you free thinkers, but I haven't seen a lot of rational thought.
No offense, but it seems you're getting a little too uptight in the case of Avalos. You've come on to my blog and accused me of using poor arguments. Were you just being polite when you did that, while I'm being a complete jerk?
Hi Irishfarmer,
As Plantinga's colleague, Phillip Quinn (now deceased) pointed out long ago, one can use Plantinga's own preferred, Chisholmian particularist, inductive method of justifying general epistemic principles to justify a version of evidentialism that avoids Plantinga's charge of being self-refuting:
Hey. Unfortunately, I haven't had the ability to read Plantinga's writing.
Though now I'm going to have to take the time to digest this new information when I can. Thanks.
BTW and for the record Irish Farmer, I have never treated a Christian scholar with the same disrespect you have shown toward Avalos...not on this blog, in my book, or in an email exchange (and I have had plenty of them). Even at that, as somewhat of a scholar myself I have earned the right to do so...you have not...and yet I don't do it.
Sorry, John. As far as I'm concerned, you could have 30 doctorates for all I care, but nothing really earns you the right to be "rude", or whatever.
I wasn't out to be rude to Avalos. And I get the impression from what little I know, that Avalos has thicker skin than you give him credit for. I'm sure he couldn't care less if I point out any epistemic blunders he makes.
Hi IrishFarmer,
okay, here's the answer to your 'trick question' if it makes you feel better.
The principle which demands evidence, does not itself have any evidence.
It depends on what you call evidence. Do you believe in Santa? No? why not, there is so much evidence out there to support it.
Your evidence for that form of verificationism is that Santa doesn't exist? I don't get it...
the point that you make, is in the context of an interview, when it is understood that he is going to say whats on his mind and not provide justification, because it would be edited out anyway. Context, context, context.
If that filmmaker took that out of context, then he's the worst filmmaker ever. You're not supposed to quote someone if you're changing the meaning of what they're saying.
But regardless, I would give Avalos the benefit of the doubt, except in 100% of cases where I've talked to atheists who also hold to a similar principle, there is no "context" hidden anywhere to change the meaning of their beliefs.
the next thing is that you are welcome to believe anything you want to, but what is it worth?
In my case? Probably not much. :)
The only real evidence there is for god is the self referential testimony of the holy spirit, right?
I don't think so.
lets rephrase it in a thoughtful way.
Believing in things that are non-falsifiable is more risky than believing in things that are falsifiable, right? It is important to minimize risk, it is a good principle. Want to challenge that?
Well, I think the principle is shaky, but no I won't challenge it.
you know this, but in my view are being deliberately deceptive, sophistic, by trying to make the worse argument look better (gee that sounds familiar). Either that or you need to spend more time on the books and less time on the internet.
Again, I don't see how any of what you've said disproves my argument.
Exapologist at least understands what it takes to meet someone head on in a matter of ideas.
I would think that the person using personal insults, appeals to motive, and other fallacious arguments would be participating in sophistry moreso than not. But that's just me.
People do seem to get their pants in a twist over epistemology, don't they? It might help to adopt a scientific attitude here. Stop trying to find out what is "true" (Pilate maybe spoke the most sensible words in the entire bible), but what *works*.
One never has to *believe* anything; one never has to make assumptions that cannot be themselves amenable to evidential modification.
As it is, the internal *evidence* in the bible indicates that it cannot be literally true, so we are justified in adopting a critical stance towards what it says. You don't need to be a major league scholar to line up the gospels and see the contradictions. You don't have to be an expert in C1CE Palestinian affairs to know that there were little belief cults and sects springing up all over the shop with various wacky beliefs. You don't need to be an accredited psychologist to know that people will believe all sorts of silly stories and affirm them to the death on the crappest of evidence. You don't need to be a scholar of comparative religion to know that *everyone* feels the "warm fuzzies" about whatever religion they happen to have chosen.
To folks like Bart Ehrman and Hector Avalos and John Loftus (and me, although if they're in the Premiership, I'm in the Saturday morning local kick-around league), they have looked at the evidence, and it is the *evidence* that is wanting.
In this respect, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are correct: "Faith" is the *problem*. It is not a virtue, but the most narcissistic form of vice.
If anything, it is very clear that any *real* god would not reveal itself to humanity through a religious route, since it would (presumably) be aware that that is the stupidest and most dangerous way to approach a human.
Irish Farmer says:
So then he should have some evidence that the proposition,'Only believe what has evidence' is worth believing.'"
Irish Farmer is pointing out a problem that I have addressed on pp. 114-15 of EOBS. This is related to an ancient problem of self-referential incoherence for evidentialism and positivist epistemologies.
I have tried to address the issue by pointing out that criticisms of the sort that Irish Farmer cites only work if he himself does not use the very principle he is critiquing. Thus, in asking for “evidence” that the “evidentialist principle” is true, he himself is using the “evidentialist principle.”
Similarly, in justifying historical positivism I have shifted to what I call “presuppositional positivism” which begins with a conditional sentence, instead of any claim of absolute or self evident status for my initial presupposition.
This presuppositional positivism works as long as others also subscribe to the presupposition, and it is usually the case that they do. Thus, any sort of self-referential inconsistency becomes less problematic once you establish that others have also accepted the same condition (e.g., IF sense data and logic can give you reliable information...).
But Irish Farmer, as other similar critics,
have not really read my book (or so it appears) and so they are really reacting to a summary statement of my epistemology in an edited video.
Thus, if Irish Farmer has a criticism AFTER reading the relevant section of EOBS, I would be glad to address it then.
One persons opinion. Others, as well educated, and within both the academic and research communities, have come to a diametrically opposed conclusions.
See Paul Vitz:
http://tinyurl.com/yab7pe8
Or views from scientists:
http://tinyurl.com/y9rlmee
http://tinyurl.com/yatfzr8
http://tinyurl.com/yatfzr8
Francis Crick, founder of DNA, tried to substantiate his atheist views by collaborating with a mathematician to calculate the possibility of DNA coming into existence itself given the known age of the earth. The calculations only concluded that it could not have happened, and he then developed his theory of "panspermia", that the earth was seeded with DNA from another planet.
Believe what you will, but recognize it all comes down to subjective personal evaluations, not evidence at all.
There is no concrete evidence against a God either. All we can reasonably say is the different individuals interprete their empirical existence differently, often citing the same sources as the reasons for their conclusions.
Post a Comment