rainbow walking

Whew! These considerations are getting deep. Let's recap

1. We've determined that there are likely a number of personal reasons any one individual could have for debating/discussing/considering this question of an existent omni-max being.

2. We've determined, somewhat, that our sources upon which we base our arguments are all a matter of interpretatiion.


3. So let's proceed from here with some further considerations to see if we can make any headway in finding the best light in which to consider our considerations.

Now mind you, everything I'm about to speculate on is a matter of interpretation and will require, from the casual reader, that he/she also incorporate their own interpretational composure in return.

In our considerations from "day one" I speculated on whether or not we could approach this question from a neutral position.

In our considerations from "day two" we saw how this would seem to be impossible because all of our arguments are founded on presuppositions that are themselves based on interpretations that, for whatever reason, appealed to us as justifiable true beliefs

Now I realize this is a new term/concept I've just introduced into the fray but don't panic. It is a matter of my personal interpretation that this concept best expresses or describes how we establish our arguments both pro and con.

(If anyone, at this point, has a better term for these basic foundational launching points of our arguments, I certainly have no objection to considering their interpretational opinion.)

But this brings me to another conundrum in these considerations.


If we absolutely require these presuppositions how is it that a child is able to learn their relative value having no such presuppositions of his own from which to interpret them?

This is likely where my friend Koy will again remind me how the cult driven fanatics indoctrinate and thus, propogate their species. And, consequently it seems to me that it probably works both ways.

So what are we talking about in relation to children? That they begin their considerations from presuppositions instilled in them by a figure of authority; usually a parent or gaurdian?

Then it would be safe to say we begin our intellectual journey being told what to believe and then, when able, begin to question these authoritative presuppositions. Does this sound like a good interpretation of this phenomenon?

So then a child born. for instance, into a christian believer's home will likely be given, not only the basics that enable him to function as a physical being, but also a set of presuppositions taken from a source that projects things like water flowing from a rock in the middle of the desert at someone named Moses command? (Incidentally, I've seen water running out of rocks, but not at someones command, mind you, it was just a spring, which is probably what happened in Moses' case where he could have known about this spring and made the people stand back far enough so that he could strike the rock and pretend to make water flow from it, thus decieving them, and this act of deception could explain why he was prohibited from entering the promised land...Oh hell, there I go again...always trying to re-interpret things to my own tastes 8^(

Then we can conclude that we have two choices here in how to approach the debate about an existent being. We approach from presuppositions instilled in us by authoritorian fiat...or we approach it from presuppositions instilled in us by...authoritorian fiat.

I mean, take the atheist position here for a moment, (seeing how I just covered the theist's position above, only seems fair we consider both sides of this coin), and consider how much of our presuppositional foundation is based on science. Now, unless you happen to be a super genious and have garnered all this scientific data on your own, at some point you had to consider the relative value of other men's observations, investigations and interpretations of the data gathered...yes? And, therefore, if our presuppositions are so grounded in these empirical methods, are we not also appealing to authority?

Thus it boils down to authority.

Ah, but the methods are crucial. How these respective authorities came to hold such sway over our thoughts and the arguments that stem from them. Alas then the sheep and the goats have gathered at the well...


As I said...whew! I've covered alot of ground here, so let's get to our next consideration prior to our considerations of the actual question itself.

question 3: What would it take to get us all to set aside our presuppositions and approach the question as orphans?

Bill

Rather than "justifiable true beliefs," the accepted term within philosophical circles is "warranted belief(s)." The word "warranted" is ever-so-finely nuanced within philosophical circles to allow for a justified belief that isn't necessarily true, but which forms the basis for further decisionmaking, etc. In my own humble opinion, its virtually impossible to get actually "justifiable true beliefs" because of the errors inherant in both the way that beliefs are acquired and in the way that truth is ascertained. It is flatly impossible to set aside all of your presuppositions. You need to at least presuppose that the bulk of your sense input conveys a largely-correct view of reality, and on that basis you can proceed to analyze the reality reported by your senses.

To "approach the question as orphans" might be possible, however. Here, you need to discard your prejudices inculcated by the culture within which you are raised and study all of the reasonable options with an open mind. If you do so, you will probably see some patterns emerge, which are basically the patterns discussed in books like Pascal Boyer's book Religion Explained. You should probably also work your way through a good set of comprehensive history, either Durant or Toynbee, and certainly at least the abridged Spengler for an introduction and overview of the issues.

But that is a heck of a lot of work! I know, because I've spent the past couple of decades doing it, and I don't consider myself anywhere near done.....

== Bill

rainbow walking

Thoughtful response, Bill.

O'kay, let's jettison the JTB in favor of "warranted beliefs". In light of your definition it sounds more fruitful as an objective (if possible)approach.

Now, on to the question of the orphans...? Another formidable challenge to anyone interested in the fullest pursuit of truth, (again, if possible to attain in this matter).

Regarding your recommended reads, I have a full set of Durants, also Bertrand Russell's "History Of Philosophy" and Paul Johnson's "History Of The Jews" ( a good read btw, and one I highly recommend). I'll look into the others and thanks again for your participation in this thread. I appreciate all the help I can get.

I would like to hear from some theists though...? Come on people, why the silence?

Godot

As Bill so eloquently stated, we cannot do away with our presuppositions. I believe the closest we can come to doing so is to recognise them within ourselves and try to gauge the degree of bias they will have on our perception of the question at hand. Probably the best way to do so is to be as informed as possible as to other perspectives (or at least those of other people involved in the exploration of the query).
Recognising the disparity between views as caused by different presuppositions can help us filter them out of the equation and thus arrive at a closer approximation of our yet-to-be-determined goal.


[editted to add:]
The lack of response from theists may be that they are afraid to stick their necks out at such an elongated discovery as you have initiated here. Who knows, just my two cents.

Bill

Perhaps the theists are out praying today? But then the question arises: for what do they pray? Surely, not another war to create more dead soldiers who then need to be memorialized on this day.

== Bill (who still believes that the war in Iraq was a very bad idea, because there is no reasonable "exit strategy" given that Bush won't turn the country over to an Islamic State ruled by the Shiite majority, and any other solution will just lead to instability and chaos, which would eventually result in an Islamic State ruled by the Shiite majority.....)

Bill

There is actually a trilogy from Alvin Plantinga (a well-known Christian philosopher) which expounds on "warrant" from his epistemic studies, and then argues why Christian belief is warranted (fulfilling his role as a philosopher of religion).

• Warrant: The Current Debate, in which Plantinga surveys the field, providing a broad overview of the various positions and arguments;
• Warrant and Proper Function, in which Plantinga argues for his own approach to "warrant" as an epistemic concept; and
• Warranted Christian Belief, in which Plantinga argues that his approach to "warrant" essentially "proves" that Christianity is the only (or best) "warranted" belief system (and, if you think that Plantinga has somehow "stacked the deck" in creating his own epistemic approach to "warrant," you aren't alone....).

I mention this not because I would recommend you follow Plantinga all the way to his conclusion, but because at least the first volume provides an excellent overview of the concept of "warrant," and as for the rest, you ought to be aware of them because Christians will frequently try to pull them on you when you least expect it....

== Bill

Koyaanisqatsi

I'm at a loss as to what it is we are supposed to be setting aside.

If you mean bias toward one particular belief set, that's seems easy enough.

What now are the givens that we are supposed to analyze absent any undue bias and to what end?

To try to determine whether or not we or the universe was created by a being or whether or not we believe we or the universe was created by a being and how (and to whom) that can be justified (warranted)?

What's the skinny here, rainbow?

rainbow walking

Hi Koy,
I was hoping you'd be a sport and help me out with this one, you know, sort of an exorcise, ( I hesitate to say in futility), but an exorcise in objectivity. Could you be persuaded to take the pro side of this question and fight for the theists who appear to all be on vacation at the moment? I'll help in any way I can.

Godot

[italics mine] RW: was this an intentional pun here or just a spelling goof?

rainbow walking

Dammit...I can't get away with anything around here.