Freethought & Rationalism Archive

not a theist · 05-19-2002, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:
So I wonder what you might be up to here. Care to elaborate on your goals?

He's a Christian Presuppositionalist or a TAG'er.
Watch and see.

[ May 19, 2002: Message edited by: not a theist ]

Autonemesis · 05-19-2002, 09:24 PM

"Atheists' Creed"? What, do you think this is some kind of AA program? God Anonymous?

However, I do like the idea of an Atheists' Motto, or more accurately, the Skeptics' Motto:

``Yeah, Right''

[ May 19, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]

Silent Dave · 05-20-2002, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by geoff:


I should have put it like this: How do you account for the way people arrive at justified true beliefs?

Uh oh. I smell a Plantinga sycophant.

Dave

Jack the Bodiless · 05-20-2002, 05:03 AM

Quote:

I should have put it like this: How do you account for the way people arrive at justified true beliefs?

Left-justified true beliefs?..............................

.............................Right-justified true beliefs?

.............Center-justified true beliefs?...............

geoff · 05-20-2002, 07:49 AM

To erase any doubts as to my motives, I am writing as a Christian theist (see my profile) who wanted to engage atheists on important issues. I am most emphatically not a presuppositionalist or a TAGer primarily because presuppositionalists deny (whether they own up to it or not) that there is any epistemological common ground between the believer and the non-believer. They also degrade the use of evidence, something (I hope) I do not.

I do believe that many of the contributors to this forum subscribe too uncritically to the Enlightenment notion of rationality (ENR for short). (To be fair, too many Christians, in my opinion, also subscribe uncritically to the EMR). The EMR goes something like this: one's beliefs should be proportionate to the evidence on hand. Such knowledge, they say, should be self-evident, based on our senses, or incorrigible. But how many of our beliefs actually pass this test? Not many, if you think about it. E.g., Does my belief that the world existed five minutes ago pass it? This issue is not a difference that divides along atheist-theist lines. This is (I think) just common-sense.

The "creed", as I wrote in a follow up post, was nothing more than my attempt to encapsulate some of what I took to be prominently held beliefs by many of the contributors to this forum. From many of the responses, I realize this was a mistake. I should have just posed just one question instead of writing a (way too lengthy) statement. (Plus, I'm new to this and now realize that my questions are, per Vorkosigan's suggestion, more suitable for the philosophy section).

But, before moving there, a few clarifications re: two related respondents' posts.

One respondent wrote:

"Belief is pretty much whatever one wants to believe since beliefs by definition is not true knowledge."

And another, responding to my question, "how do you account for the way people arrive at justified true beliefs":

"Uh oh. I smell a Plantinga sycophant."

A "Plantinga sycophant"? C'mon! The question re: justification was posed at least as far back as Plato (at least in some inchoate way). It has been commonly held (among atheists and theists alike - this question shows no favorites) that knowledge should meet three conditions: the subject has to believe something, that something has to be true, and the subject should have some justification or reason(s) for believing it to be true. This last part has proven through the millenia to be the most sticky. (Important: this is not some narrowly circumscribed debate taking place among Christian philosophers of religion.).

Boro Nut · 05-20-2002, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Someone7:
"God is a donkey"

I realise you are being flippant, but there is some validity in what you say, speaking as I do from the viewpoint of a donkey mite.

Boro Nut

Wyrdsmyth · 05-20-2002, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by geoff:
And another, responding to my question, "how do you account for the way people arrive at justified true beliefs"?

Wouldn't this be more appropriate in the philosophy forum? "How do we know what we know?" seems at best peripherally related to the question of whether any gods exist.

Of course, the reason you got the reaction you did when asking this question is because we've all seen presuppositionalists and TAGers take this approach, and try to argue that the only way to account for having knowledge is to presuppose a god (and not just any god, but their god), and that atheists, not presupposing such a thing, hence, cannot "know anything." So, it's a familiar opening.

[ May 20, 2002: Message edited by: Wyrdsmyth ]

tronvillain · 05-20-2002, 11:36 AM

geoff:

Quote:

I should have put it like this: How do you account for the way people arrive at justified true beliefs?

They combine perception with logic in a probablistic attempt to approximate justified true beliefs, and are generally never entirely sure that they have arrived at justified true beliefs. What's your point?

Vorkosigan · 05-20-2002, 02:02 PM

I am most emphatically not a presuppositionalist or a TAGer primarily because presuppositionalists deny (whether they own up to it or not) that there is any epistemological common ground between the believer and the non-believer. They also degrade the use of evidence, something (I hope) I do not.

Thanks. We all feel the same way about presuppositionalists. Posts from presups make me want to consume large quantities of Haagen-daz.

I do believe that many of the contributors to this forum subscribe too uncritically to the Enlightenment notion of rationality (ENR for short). (To be fair, too many Christians, in my opinion, also subscribe uncritically to the EMR). The EMR goes something like this: one's beliefs should be proportionate to the evidence on hand. Such knowledge, they say, should be self-evident, based on our senses, or incorrigible. But how many of our beliefs actually pass this test? Not many, if you think about it. E.g., Does my belief that the world existed five minutes ago pass it? This issue is not a difference that divides along atheist-theist lines. This is (I think) just common-sense.

I am not sure I agree with this. The idea that the world has been around 5 minutes IS something that my senses tell me, and seems self-evident, although I see no way to prove it.

A "Plantinga sycophant"? C'mon!

Well, the phrase "justified true beliefs" is one that reeks of Plantinga, which is why both I and another poster identified the question with him.

It has been commonly held (among atheists and theists alike - this question shows no favorites) that knowledge should meet three conditions: the subject has to believe something, that something has to be true, and the subject should have some justification or reason(s) for believing it to be true.

I think the second portion of that statement has not been commonly held among anybody except Christians. I doubt many metaphysical naturalists who take their epistemological cues from science would subscribe to it.

This last part has proven through the millenia to be the most sticky. (Important: this is not some narrowly circumscribed debate taking place among Christian philosophers of religion.).

True enough. So...er...what was the question?

Vorkosigan

geoff · 05-20-2002, 02:35 PM

Vorkosigan, thanks for your response.

I suppose I need to take this to the "Philosophy" board before posting anything new.

(Thanks for being patient with this new guy!).

05-19-2002, 09:24 PM	#22
Autonemesis Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: I've left FRDB for good, due to new WI&P policy Posts: 12,048	"Atheists' Creed"? What, do you think this is some kind of AA program? God Anonymous? However, I do like the idea of an Atheists' Motto, or more accurately, the Skeptics' Motto: ``Yeah, Right'' [ May 19, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]</p>

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

05-20-2002, 07:49 AM	#25
geoff Junior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 39	To erase any doubts as to my motives, I am writing as a Christian theist (see my profile) who wanted to engage atheists on important issues. I am most emphatically not a presuppositionalist or a TAGer primarily because presuppositionalists deny (whether they own up to it or not) that there is any epistemological common ground between the believer and the non-believer. They also degrade the use of evidence, something (I hope) I do not. I do believe that many of the contributors to this forum subscribe too uncritically to the Enlightenment notion of rationality (ENR for short). (To be fair, too many Christians, in my opinion, also subscribe uncritically to the EMR). The EMR goes something like this: one's beliefs should be proportionate to the evidence on hand. Such knowledge, they say, should be self-evident, based on our senses, or incorrigible. But how many of our beliefs actually pass this test? Not many, if you think about it. E.g., Does my belief that the world existed five minutes ago pass it? This issue is not a difference that divides along atheist-theist lines. This is (I think) just common-sense. The "creed", as I wrote in a follow up post, was nothing more than my attempt to encapsulate some of what I took to be prominently held beliefs by many of the contributors to this forum. From many of the responses, I realize this was a mistake. I should have just posed just one question instead of writing a (way too lengthy) statement. (Plus, I'm new to this and now realize that my questions are, per Vorkosigan's suggestion, more suitable for the philosophy section). But, before moving there, a few clarifications re: two related respondents' posts. One respondent wrote: "Belief is pretty much whatever one wants to believe since beliefs by definition is not true knowledge." And another, responding to my question, "how do you account for the way people arrive at justified true beliefs": "Uh oh. I smell a Plantinga sycophant." A "Plantinga sycophant"? C'mon! The question re: justification was posed at least as far back as Plato (at least in some inchoate way). It has been commonly held (among atheists and theists alike - this question shows no favorites) that knowledge should meet three conditions: the subject has to believe something, that something has to be true, and the subject should have some justification or reason(s) for believing it to be true. This last part has proven through the millenia to be the most sticky. (Important: this is not some narrowly circumscribed debate taking place among Christian philosophers of religion.).

05-20-2002, 02:02 PM	#29
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	I am most emphatically not a presuppositionalist or a TAGer primarily because presuppositionalists deny (whether they own up to it or not) that there is any epistemological common ground between the believer and the non-believer. They also degrade the use of evidence, something (I hope) I do not. Thanks. We all feel the same way about presuppositionalists. Posts from presups make me want to consume large quantities of Haagen-daz. I do believe that many of the contributors to this forum subscribe too uncritically to the Enlightenment notion of rationality (ENR for short). (To be fair, too many Christians, in my opinion, also subscribe uncritically to the EMR). The EMR goes something like this: one's beliefs should be proportionate to the evidence on hand. Such knowledge, they say, should be self-evident, based on our senses, or incorrigible. But how many of our beliefs actually pass this test? Not many, if you think about it. E.g., Does my belief that the world existed five minutes ago pass it? This issue is not a difference that divides along atheist-theist lines. This is (I think) just common-sense. I am not sure I agree with this. The idea that the world has been around 5 minutes IS something that my senses tell me, and seems self-evident, although I see no way to prove it. A "Plantinga sycophant"? C'mon! Well, the phrase "justified true beliefs" is one that reeks of Plantinga, which is why both I and another poster identified the question with him. It has been commonly held (among atheists and theists alike - this question shows no favorites) that knowledge should meet three conditions: the subject has to believe something, that something has to be true, and the subject should have some justification or reason(s) for believing it to be true. I think the second portion of that statement has not been commonly held among anybody except Christians. I doubt many metaphysical naturalists who take their epistemological cues from science would subscribe to it. This last part has proven through the millenia to be the most sticky. (Important: this is not some narrowly circumscribed debate taking place among Christian philosophers of religion.). True enough. So...er...what was the question? Vorkosigan

05-20-2002, 02:35 PM	#30
geoff Junior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 39	Vorkosigan, thanks for your response. I suppose I need to take this to the "Philosophy" board before posting anything new. (Thanks for being patient with this new guy!).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.