Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kenny · 02-06-2003, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bd-from-kg
[B]Kenny:

The link worked fine for me last night and still works this morning. Anyone else having problems with it?

Actually, I just got it. I don't know what the trouble was before.

Thanks,
Kenny

Kuyper · 02-06-2003, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kenny
No. The argument is not that belief in God is warranted just because we might say that certain states of affairs in the world are true. The argument is that if God exists, then it is likely that the state of affairs in the world are such that belief in God is warranted for many of its adherents in a properly basic manner. On the other hand, if God does not exist, then belief in God is likely not warranted for any of its adherents in a properly basic manner (and probably not warranted for any believer at all). In other words, because of the very nature of theistic belief, the question of the rationality of theism cannot be separated out from the question of the truth of theism. Since the two questions are so entangled, the atheist cannot say something like �even if God did exist, belief in God would be irrational because there is insufficient evidence.� That�s the point of the argument. It doesn�t establish whether or not belief in God really is properly basic with respect to warrant or whether or not theism is true; it just shows that the atheist cannot disparage the rationality of theism without already assuming that theism is false.

God Bless,
Kenny

Kenny,

Your explanation here is much more thorough than the one I gave, although we're saying basically the same thing. Your last sentence above is one of the reasons I wanted to start this particular thread. The whole point is that unless one assumes a priori that atheism is true (or theism false, depending on how you want to word it), there doesn't seem to be any good reason apart from prior prejudice for claiming that theistic belief is irrational.

Arguments about whether or not there is sufficient evidence to warrant theistic belief are really a separate issue.

K

Kuyper · 02-06-2003, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kenny (in response to Rainbow)
One shouldn�t, which is why I haven�t departed from my ontological perspective of theism and embraced metaphysical naturalism.

Do you really think this now rainbow? Do you really think that Metaphysical Naturalism is somehow established by science rather than just being another metaphysical dogma in and of itself? If so, I am disappointed, since you are falling into the same mental traps which, prior to your conversion, you were so apt in being able to deconstruct. Perhaps you might be interested in my take on the issue of the relationship between science and Christianity and why I do not see them as incompatible? I hope you will indulge me by reading my essay, but if you lack for the time, then I understand.

Well, from my perspective, theism provides the solid foundation and metaphysical naturalism the goo, but I suppose just making such assertions will not be of any avail for either of us.

I still pray for you rainbow; I hope you will find your way back home someday.

God Bless,
Kenny

Rainbow,

Kenny's response here to your comments is pretty close to what I would have said (except I didn't have Kenny's article). He just beat me to it.

K

Kenny · 02-06-2003, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kuyper
Rainbow,

Kenny's response here to your comments is pretty close to what I would have said (except I didn't have Kenny's article). He just beat me to it.

K

Thanks for the compliments Kuyper. I hope I am not stepping on your toes. If so, I apologize.

In Christ,
Kenny

Kuyper · 02-06-2003, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kenny
Thanks for the compliments Kuyper. I hope I am not stepping on your toes. If so, I apologize.

In Christ,
Kenny

Kenny,

Not at all. You've saved me lots and lots of typing for which I'm grateful. :notworthy

For bd-from-kg,

I do want to formulate some responses to your last two or three posts, but am in the midst of several work related projects right now that require my attention. Be patient and I'll get to it, perhaps over the weekend.

Meanwhile, I want to compliment you, Kenny, and a few of the others (can't recall all the names) for high quality of this dialogue. [NOTE: I do not refer to this as a "debate" as I firmly hold it is a dialogue in every sense of the term]
Thanks for taking so much time to engage the issues.

Well, back to the salt mines!!....(whistling) "hey ho hey ho, it's off to work I go...."

K

Photocrat · 02-06-2003, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rainbow walking
(Hi Kuyper)...that Platinga, and you, are launching an argument that the foundational attributes of ones ontology needn't be rational or supported with "sufficient evidence" to justify ones beliefs?

I ask this in response to what you said here:

My argument is, yes. In this respect, I agree with Plantinga's project in his "Warrented Christian Belief". But even he points out that his argument isn't intended to prove God exists. Rather, it is intended to say that belief in God doesn't require evidence to be rational. Plantinga's challenge is to the evidentialist's claim that only those beliefs that have "sufficient evidence" can be rational. In a nutshell, the response is that the belief that that requirement is necessary is itself lacking sufficient evidence, so is self-refuting.

It took Plantinga 500+ pages to get there, but that is, I think, the essence of his argument. But on its own, it isn't meant as an argument to demonstrate that God exists.

Why should one accept irrational claims as evidences sufficient to justify a radical departure from ones ontological perspectives?

Metaphysical naturalism is derived from scientifically established evidences that are rational. Why should one step off such a solid foundation into the ethereal goo of theism whose assertions subsist on claims that neither evidence nor rationality can be found among its ingredients?

Hi RW :] I'm here mostly to let you know that I haven't forgotten about you, as I promised I would not :] You'll have to forgive me for being brief, as I'm sick, ATM.

Conserning this arguement, it seems as though some are trying to construct a metaphysical naturalism that is the set of all rational beliefs [or something to that effect]. This falls to Godel. That there may be true but unprovable statements in any system we construct is unavoidable. While that doesn't mean that we should just go around believing things because we find them attractive for some reason, it does imply that we cannot rule them out a priori :]

You can argue about what to include and all, and perhaps you can weaken that from "all rational beliefs" to those we have rational evidence to support, but you cannot prove any statement outside it to be untrue, nor can you show that others with other evidence do not have the rational warrant to believe something, especially since I know that even eye-witness testamony is considered unreliable here [e.g. as with UFO claims and similar statements, the people who saw them could be mistaken/delusional/lying/whatever]

It's just that I'm not convinced that some construct of warranted beliefs can "dictate" reality per se. Appologies if I've gone way off track by now :]

bd-from-kg · 02-06-2003, 06:00 PM

Kenny:

Your reply to ReasonableDoubt illustrates perfectly the fancy two-step that Plantinga has set up by defining �warrant� in the peculiar way that he did. Thus:

Quote:

The argument is that if God exists, then it is likely that the state of affairs in the world are such that belief in God is warranted for many of its adherents in a properly basic manner.

Using Plantinga�s concept of �warrant�, this is true. Unfortunately, as I pointed out, this concept of warrant does not entail rational justification. But you immediately proceed to ignore this and continue just as though the fact that belief in God is �warranted� (in this peculiar sense) does entail that it�s rationally justified:

Quote:

In other words, because of the very nature of theistic belief, the question of the rationality of theism cannot be separated out from the question of the truth of theism.

Wrong. The question of whether theistic belief is warranted (in Plantinga�s sense) cannot be separated out from the question of its truth. But the question of whether it�s rationally justified can be.

Quote:

... the atheist cannot say something like �even if God did exist, belief in God would be irrational because there is insufficient evidence.�

Do you really understand what you�re saying here? You�re saying that this would be true even if there were no evidence whatsoever that God exists. In other words, we cannot say that it would be irrational to believe that God exists even in the total absence of evidence, or even a remotely plausible argument, that He does. This is madness.

You claim that we cannot say that this would be irrational because if He happened to exist it would be probable that He would have caused your belief in Him. This is exactly analogous to saying that we cannot say that the claim of a resident of a lunatic asylum that his mind is being controlled by gamma rays emitted by benevolent Martians is irrational, because after all, if it happened to be true the Martians would have caused him to believe it (along with lots of other truths that those of us whose minds are not affected by the gamma rays are not privy to). So we can�t say that his belief is irrational unless we know that it�s false. But this is absurd. If he has no evidence that there actually are Martians pointing mind-controlling gamma rays at him. it�s completely irrational for him to believe that there are, even if by some wild chance there really are.

luvluv · 02-06-2003, 06:13 PM

bd:

Quote:

So we can�t say that his belief is irrational unless we know that it�s false. But this is absurd. If he has no evidence that there actually are Martians pointing mind-controlling gamma rays at him. it�s completely irrational for him to believe that there are, even if by some wild chance there really are.

Is this situation really analagous to that of the theist? It isn't the case that the theist has NO evidence. He has evidence which, if theism is true, is warranted.

KnightWhoSaysNi · 02-06-2003, 06:42 PM

Kenny and bd,

You both should consider debating in the formal debate/discussion forum. It's been aeons since we've had anything in there.

Or perhaps capnkirk vs. kuyper, luvluv vs. K, or whoever's interested.

K · 02-06-2003, 06:49 PM

bd-from-kg:

I think you've shot this argument full of holes (or actually exposed the holes that already existed). After all, if there really is a 2,000 year old dog who can command peple to kill, it's reasonable to think that he would cause the killer to believe in him. Therefore, we can't say that David Berkowitz was irrational unless we can somehow prove (without using evidence of course) that this dog doesn't exist. If the dog exists, the Son of Sam had warrant for belief in him.

luvluv:

It sounds like your answer would be that theistic belief must have evidence to be rational. I think that is the general consensus here - except for Kenny and Kuyper who believe otherwise.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-06-2003, 06:42 PM	#159
KnightWhoSaysNi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 2,767	Kenny and bd, You both should consider debating in the formal debate/discussion forum. It's been aeons since we've had anything in there. Or perhaps capnkirk vs. kuyper, luvluv vs. K, or whoever's interested.

02-06-2003, 06:49 PM	#160
K Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,485	bd-from-kg: I think you've shot this argument full of holes (or actually exposed the holes that already existed). After all, if there really is a 2,000 year old dog who can command peple to kill, it's reasonable to think that he would cause the killer to believe in him. Therefore, we can't say that David Berkowitz was irrational unless we can somehow prove (without using evidence of course) that this dog doesn't exist. If the dog exists, the Son of Sam had warrant for belief in him. luvluv: It sounds like your answer would be that theistic belief must have evidence to be rational. I think that is the general consensus here - except for Kenny and Kuyper who believe otherwise.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.