Well, I watched another WLC debate (self-inflicted torture; I never learn) and he claimed that knowledge of God's existence (something like that) is properly basic..... fuck me.
If you were conversatin' with Craig, how would you respond to that, er, argument?
"If it is, why didn't and doesn't anyone who hasn't had contact with the christian church know about it?"
It's proper basic only for people who've had it stamped into their heads since birth. If everyone knew about god, he wouldn't have suddenly popped into existance a few thousand years ago, when people have been around for hundreds of thousands.
I have three grand kids raised in non-religious settings. Two of them are declared atheists, the other just learned to walk. Haven't sen any sudden desire to worship god just yet.
Quote from: "stromboli"I have three grand kids raised in non-religious settings. Two of them are declared atheists, the other just learned to walk. Haven't sen any sudden desire to worship god just yet.
And I'm guessing their atheism hasn't "led to Nihilism" either?
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Well, I watched another WLC debate (self-inflicted torture; I never learn) and he claimed that knowledge of God's existence (something like that) is properly basic..... fuck me.
If you were conversatin' with Craig, how would you respond to that, er, argument?
It's a view within contemporary epistemology. Whatever the merits of the view, I'll say this. It's not stupid. It might be wrong--I think it is--but the beautiful of philosophy is dealing with views that are almost certainly wrong.
Basicality refers to a psychological condition under which a belief is held. Beliefs are held in one of two ways: inferentially or basically. I can believe certain things either based on another belief or not. If I hold a belief, but not based on another belief, it is basic. Take the belief "I exist." This isn't--one wouldn't thing--a belief based on another belief.
A properly basic belief is a belief that is epistemically justified. Hence, it's not just a basic belief, but it is a special kind of basic belief. It's a justified basic belief. Though, of course, the epistemic justification doesn't come from another belief.
So, the claim here is that belief in God is like this. That is, it's an epistemically non-inferentially justified belief.
Now, perhaps this isn't so crazy as it seems. One can motivate the view in many ways. You all probably believe the external world exists, yes? Why? Do you base it on another belief? I doubt it...it just *seems* to you that it does exist. You look around and it *seems* that what you see are physical objects. None of you have great belief inferential reasons to believe in the external world.
Might the same not be for the theist to whom it *seems* that God exists? Now, it doesn't seem that God exists to me (or most of you). But that's fine. It might not *seem* to other that the external world exists.
The question is whether the proper basicality of belief in God is like other cases of plausible proper basicality. Honestly? I dunno. I doubt it, though. I confess that I don't really have a solid view on the matter.
It's good to practice philosophical empathy, fellas. It's a good intellectual skill to have :)
Quote from: "Chaoslord2004"Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Well, I watched another WLC debate (self-inflicted torture; I never learn) and he claimed that knowledge of God's existence (something like that) is properly basic..... fuck me.
If you were conversatin' with Craig, how would you respond to that, er, argument?
It's a view within contemporary epistemology. Whatever the merits of the view, I'll say this. It's not stupid. It might be wrong--I think it is--but the beautiful of philosophy is dealing with views that are almost certainly wrong.
Basicality refers to a psychological condition under which a belief is held. Beliefs are held in one of two ways: inferentially or basically. I can believe certain things either based on another belief or not. If I hold a belief, but not based on another belief, it is basic. Take the belief "I exist." This isn't--one wouldn't thing--a belief based on another belief.
A properly basic belief is a belief that is epistemically justified. Hence, it's not just a basic belief, but it is a special kind of basic belief. It's a justified basic belief. Though, of course, the epistemic justification doesn't come from another belief.
So, the claim here is that belief in God is like this. That is, it's an epistemically non-inferentially justified belief.
Now, perhaps this isn't so crazy as it seems. One can motivate the view in many ways. You all probably believe the external world exists, yes? Why? Do you base it on another belief? I doubt it...it just *seems* to you that it does exist. You look around and it *seems* that what you see are physical objects. None of you have great belief inferential reasons to believe in the external world.
Might the same not be for the theist to whom it *seems* that God exists? Now, it doesn't seem that God exists to me (or most of you). But that's fine. It might not *seem* to other that the external world exists.
The question is whether the proper basicality of belief in God is like other cases of plausible proper basicality. Honestly? I dunno. I doubt it, though. I confess that I don't really have a solid view on the matter.
It's good to practice philosophical empathy, fellas. It's a good intellectual skill to have :)
I recently (as of the last 2 months) became interested in and began studying some areas of philosophy (Ayn Rand notwithstanding), so I was even less knowledgeable about it when I made this thread (I had some awareness of it).
Oh I have empathy for other people and the fact that they have different positions than I, but it is in direct conflict here with my great dislike of practically all things Bill Craig. :)
In regards to the comparison with believing in the reality of the external world, that doesn't seem quite the same to me. When I ponder it, I never can come up with anything that would seem to settle it (not even close). The only thing I can do is what Descartes did ages ago (and he probably wasn't the first), which is that I can't manage to truly doubt my own existence, and that the act of doubting itself would seem to necessitate that I do in fact exist.
I can't really find that with the belief in something other than the Self, in this case God. It just comes across the way all of Craig's other arguments do: A way of avoiding an actual answer that supports his actual beliefs.
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Well, I watched another WLC debate (self-inflicted torture; I never learn) and he claimed that knowledge of God's existence (something like that) is properly basic..... fuck me.
If you were conversatin' with Craig, how would you respond to that, er, argument?
I'd probably say something along these lines: "The basic belief for god's existence hinges on internal processes, separated from anyone and everything, which reduces it to solipsism. So you have to demonstrate that the basic belief is demonstrable, otherwise his position is merely incorrigible and not falsifiable."
He would, I guess, come with some kneejerk ontological waving of the hands which he does so well; expecting this, depending on what flavour of ontological masturbation it was, I'd proceed to say something along the lines of: "You're a flaming homosexual and charlatan."
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Well, I watched another WLC debate (self-inflicted torture; I never learn) and he claimed that knowledge of God's existence (something like that) is properly basic..... fuck me.
If you were conversatin' with Craig, how would you respond to that, er, argument?
I would start off saying, " I am a Hindu. I have knowledge of three hundred gods but yours is not among them, explain that please."
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"I recently (as of the last 2 months) became interested in and began studying some areas of philosophy (Ayn Rand notwithstanding)
Well, I wouldn't consider Rand a philosopher...
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Oh I have empathy for other people and the fact that they have different positions than I, but it is in direct conflict here with my great dislike of practically all things Bill Craig.
He's not a very good philosopher, frankly. There are many good theistic philosophers. Alvin Plantinga, for example, is a very skilled philosopher.
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"In regards to the comparison with believing in the reality of the external world, that doesn't seem quite the same to me. When I ponder it, I never can come up with anything that would seem to settle it (not even close). The only thing I can do is what Descartes did ages ago (and he probably wasn't the first), which is that I can't manage to truly doubt my own existence, and that the act of doubting itself would seem to necessitate that I do in fact exist.
Well, Descartes got the external world back by appealing to God. That's not the route you want to go, right? I mean, this is how how "proved" that there was a external world. Remember his "God is not a deceiver" claim? God has made his cognitive faculties reliable, so this is how he can know his perceptions are--for the most part--vertical, rather than the product of an evil demon, blah, blah, blah... I won't fill out the details.
Nevertheless, I believe the external world exists. But it isn't like I infer this from another belief of mine. It seems like a basic belief. Since I tend to favor a kind of a kind of foundationalism (though I flirt with coherentism) in epistemology, I think my belief in the external world is properly basic.
Quote from: "Chaoslord2004"Well, I wouldn't consider Rand a philosopher...
That was my point. :P *Joke fail*
QuoteHe's not a very good philosopher, frankly. There are many good theistic philosophers. Alvin Plantinga, for example, is a very skilled philosopher.
I certainly like Plantinga more and he's far less.... irritating to watch, but Craig seemingly gets a good amount of his arguments from him - including this one I think - doesn't he? Certainly his Ontological argument, which makes me frown whenever I hear Craig use it (thankfully he doesn't use it in every debate, though I notice it seems to be used only in those in which a philosopher isn't his opponent).
QuoteWell, Descartes got the external world back by appealing to God. That's not the route you want to go, right? I mean, this is how how "proved" that there was a external world. Remember his "God is not a deceiver" claim? God has made his cognitive faculties reliable, so this is how he can know his perceptions are--for the most part--vertical, rather than the product of an evil demon, blah, blah, blah... I won't fill out the details.
Ah yes, how'd I forget that? (*needs to read more clearly*) I prefer brain-in-a-jar to deceptive Demon though. :)
In one of my more maniacle moments, I'd likely respond by pointing out the fact that God (in the Bible) at one point specifically states that he
does in fact deceived some people, so that they make be punished. ;)
QuoteNevertheless, I believe the external world exists. But it isn't like I infer this from another belief of mine. It seems like a basic belief. Since I tend to favor a kind of a kind of foundationalism (though I flirt with coherentism) in epistemology, I think my belief in the external world is properly basic.
I believe it exists as well, I simply don't know if it could be "proven" that it is definitely the case that it does.
Quote from: "Chaoslord2004"Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Well, I watched another WLC debate (self-inflicted torture; I never learn) and he claimed that knowledge of God's existence (something like that) is properly basic..... fuck me.
If you were conversatin' with Craig, how would you respond to that, er, argument?
It's a view within contemporary epistemology. Whatever the merits of the view, I'll say this. It's not stupid. It might be wrong--I think it is--but the beautiful of philosophy is dealing with views that are almost certainly wrong.
Basicality refers to a psychological condition under which a belief is held. Beliefs are held in one of two ways: inferentially or basically. I can believe certain things either based on another belief or not. If I hold a belief, but not based on another belief, it is basic. Take the belief "I exist." This isn't--one wouldn't thing--a belief based on another belief.
A properly basic belief is a belief that is epistemically justified. Hence, it's not just a basic belief, but it is a special kind of basic belief. It's a justified basic belief. Though, of course, the epistemic justification doesn't come from another belief.
So, the claim here is that belief in God is like this. That is, it's an epistemically non-inferentially justified belief.
Now, perhaps this isn't so crazy as it seems. One can motivate the view in many ways. You all probably believe the external world exists, yes? Why? Do you base it on another belief? I doubt it...it just *seems* to you that it does exist. You look around and it *seems* that what you see are physical objects. None of you have great belief inferential reasons to believe in the external world.
Might the same not be for the theist to whom it *seems* that God exists? Now, it doesn't seem that God exists to me (or most of you). But that's fine. It might not *seem* to other that the external world exists.
The question is whether the proper basicality of belief in God is like other cases of plausible proper basicality. Honestly? I dunno. I doubt it, though. I confess that I don't really have a solid view on the matter.
It's good to practice philosophical empathy, fellas. It's a good intellectual skill to have :)
Smiles and cookies from me!
Quote from: "Chaoslord2004"I'll say this. It's not stupid. It might be wrong--I think it is--but the beautiful of philosophy is dealing with views that are almost certainly wrong.
:-D
Gerard
QuoteThe question is whether the proper basicality of belief in God is like other cases of plausible proper basicality
:Hangman:
Anything inside your own subconscious can be considered properly basic. Anything outside of the subconscious is up for scrutiny.
Now, I'll leave it to the believers whether that makes god properly basic. It probably is, by the above definition.
Knowledge is knowledge. It is nothing else than just that.
Gerard
And there is a difference between knowledge and belief (aka faith). That stands, whatever the excuses are!
Gerard
Quote from: "Plu"Anything inside your own subconscious can be considered properly basic. Anything outside of the subconscious is up for scrutiny.
Now, I'll leave it to the believers whether that makes god properly basic. It probably is, by the above definition.
That's not the technical definition of proper basicality. The term has a very specialized use within epistemology.
Quote from: "Gerard"And there is a difference between knowledge and belief (aka faith). That stands, whatever the excuses are!
Gerard
I'm not sure what the implication is, but an properly basic belief is a justified belief. It's not faith. It's just that it's justified but not in virtue of being inferred from another belief. So it's justification is "basic" and isn't inherited.
One question, then, is: where does it get it's justification from? Tough question. And i'm not quite sure (not sure whether I completely believe in PB beliefs). This problem has lead some epistemologists to endorse a coherentist theory of justification.
Quote from: "Chaoslord2004"Quote from: "Gerard"And there is a difference between knowledge and belief (aka faith). That stands, whatever the excuses are!
Gerard
I'm not sure what the implication is, but an properly basic belief is a justified belief. It's not faith. It's just that it's justified but not in virtue of being inferred from another belief. So it's justification is "basic" and isn't inherited.
One question, then, is: where does it get it's justification from? Tough question. And i'm not quite sure (not sure whether I completely believe in PB beliefs). This problem has lead some epistemologists to endorse a coherentist theory of justification.
Hmmm. I'm not all that well versed in the philosophy behind this, but for a belief to be justified, (so it seems to me...) it should be backed up, or at least not in contradiction with, verifiable observations about such a belief...
Gerard
Quote from: "Chaoslord2004"(not sure whether I completely believe in PB beliefs).
[-X
Peanut butter belief? I thought everyone believed in peanut butter belief(s)? In fact, plural PB beliefs just makes that all the better.
:wink:
Quote from: "Gerard"Quote from: "Chaoslord2004"Quote from: "Gerard"And there is a difference between knowledge and belief (aka faith). That stands, whatever the excuses are!
Gerard
I'm not sure what the implication is, but an properly basic belief is a justified belief. It's not faith. It's just that it's justified but not in virtue of being inferred from another belief. So it's justification is "basic" and isn't inherited.
One question, then, is: where does it get it's justification from? Tough question. And i'm not quite sure (not sure whether I completely believe in PB beliefs). This problem has lead some epistemologists to endorse a coherentist theory of justification.
Hmmm. I'm not all that well versed in the philosophy behind this, but for a belief to be justified, (so it seems to me...) it should be backed up, or at least not in contradiction with, verifiable observations about such a belief...
Gerard
What empirical observations do you have that contradict either of these claims: God exists; belief in God is properly basic.
Quote from: "Chaoslord2004"Quote from: "Plu"Anything inside your own subconscious can be considered properly basic. Anything outside of the subconscious is up for scrutiny.
Now, I'll leave it to the believers whether that makes god properly basic. It probably is, by the above definition.
That's not the technical definition of proper basicality. The term has a very specialized use within epistemology.
I know; I just don't buy it. Anything outside your brain can be verified by externals. (And probably in a few decades, so can anything inside your brain)
QuoteGod exists
The inherent contradiction(s) within the definition(s) of the word? I mean; if anyone were willing to put down a final definition, but they're all terrified because they've got nothing.
Quotebelief in God is properly basic.
Brainscans that show that people who talk about god are just talking about themselves in the third person? Like I said; the subconscious is properly basic (for the time being, anyway) but god doesn't seem to transcend it. That's why each person has their own version of god who just happens to agree with everything they say.
Quote from: "Plu"Brainscans that show that people who talk about god are just talking about themselves in the third person? Like I said; the subconscious is properly basic (for the time being, anyway) but god doesn't seem to transcend it. That's why each person has their own version of god who just happens to agree with everything they say.
There's an interesting hypothesis by Darkmatter2525 on YouTube that theists, because of how internalized their faith is, saying straight to a believers face that you don't believe in god they get a psychological response similar to rejection.
[youtube:1hzp3e42]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j8ZMMuu7MU[/youtube:1hzp3e42]
Quote from: "Plu"I know; I just don't buy it.
So you deny that there are properly basic beliefs? Fair enough. So are you an infinitist, meaning all justified beliefs are inferential and non-repeating or a coherentist, meaning all beliefs are inferential and some are repeating? With the former, you have an infinite chain, whereas with the latter you have either a circle or web of justification.
Quote from: "Plu"Anything outside your brain can be verified by externals.
This is a dubious proposition and also not relevant to the discussion.
Quote from: "Plu"The inherent contradiction(s) within the definition(s) of the word? I mean; if anyone were willing to put down a final definition, but they're all terrified because they've got nothing.
What contradiction? You haven't told me. Show me a case of P & ~P.
Quote from: "Plu"Brainscans...
Has NOTHING to do with properly basic beliefs.
QuoteSo you deny that there are properly basic beliefs?
Only properly basic beliefs about something outside of the human consciousness.
QuoteWhat contradiction? You haven't told me. Show me a case of P & ~P.
Show me a proper definition of god, and I'll look for a P & ~P.
Quote from: "Plu"Show me a proper definition of god, and I'll look for a P & ~P.
Well, there needn't be a contradiction with the term "God", it just happens too be an obscenely bloated word. I mean, defining God in a deistic way probably wouldn't have any self-contradictory propositions. :)
No, but it would also have next to nothing in common with what our friend Craig is talking about. I don't have any problems with the deific god, because he doesn't have any properties, nor does he demand anything from anyone.
But to say that the christian god is properly basic is absurd due to the ridiculous amount of bullcrap you have to take for granted.
Quote from: "Plu"Show me a proper definition of god, and I'll look for a P & ~P.
A metaphysically perfect being that is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omnipresent.
Quote from: "Plu"But to say that the christian god is properly basic is absurd due to the ridiculous amount of bullcrap you have to take for granted.
Like...
Quote from: "Chaoslord2004"Quote from: "Plu"But to say that the christian god is properly basic is absurd due to the ridiculous amount of bullcrap you have to take for granted.
Like...
I would assume he means things such as certain supposed historical events that, for all intents and purposes, we can say didn't occur, such as basically the entire book of Exodus and Genesis.
I think.
Quote from: "Chaoslord2004"Quote from: "Plu"Show me a proper definition of god, and I'll look for a P & ~P.
A metaphysically perfect being that is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omnipresent.
These three are contradictory to the real world. Thats basically just the Problem of Evil (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil) point.
You could also use the problem of perfection; in that there is a more perfect being imaginable by taking one that doesn't allow suffering, meaning that this god is not a perfect one.
Although, to be honest, I don't really mind people who believe in just the god you mentioned. The problem is that most people tack on a whole lot of other stuff about hatred, judgement and sin, and that's where the shitty things start happening. And inevitably, where loads more contradictions start happening.
QuoteI would assume he means things such as certain supposed historical events that, for all intents and purposes, we can say didn't occur, such as basically the entire book of Exodus and Genesis.
For starters, yes. The main reason the concept of a specific yet properly basic god doesn't work is the simple problem that without outside influence, no two people would come up with the same god. Even with outside influence, everyone's god is different.
Beliefs that are properly basic need to be reachable by just about everyone without anyone telling them about them. "I exist" is something understood even by toddlers. "There is a god" is barely understood by young children unless forced upon them. "There is a god and he made gay people but then punishes them for eternity for acting on it" is a conclusion no person will reach on their own unless their society pushes it on them. That can't be properly basic.
Which makes the full problem that people take from an outside influence (a major strike against the belief being "basic") the belief that a god exists (something for which there is no empirical evidence for or against) and that this god holds a number of views (which are now widely considered immoral by almost everyone, including those who believe in him) and that this god did a number of things we know he did not (except for a few seriously extremist religiousinists) and that even those who claim to believe in the same god assign him completely different attributes (which align perfectly with their own views, of course)
I see nothing here that gives of the idea that belief in god is properly basic.
Quote from: "Chaoslord2004"Quote from: "Plu"Show me a proper definition of god, and I'll look for a P & ~P.
A metaphysically perfect being that is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omnipresent.
Has this been covered before how they would be internally contradictory?
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Well, I watched another WLC debate (self-inflicted torture; I never learn) and he claimed that knowledge of God's existence (something like that) is properly basic..... fuck me.
If you were conversatin' with Craig, how would you respond to that, er, argument?
It ain't, since God can be disproven.
WCL got this trope from Alvin Plantinga.
What counts as justification for belief in God? Alvin Plantinga in his book Warranted Christian Belief has argued that man has a sensus divinitatis or "sense of the divine," opening the possibility that belief in God could be properly basic. Plantinga goes on to argue that attempts to reject Christian theism as unwarranted fail.
For those interested, Plantinga's book can be found here
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/plantinga/warrant3.html (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/plantinga/warrant3.html)
Sensus Divinatus comes from Calvin, who contradicts himself on the concept, claiming original sin depives us of SD. And atheists most certainly don't have it.
And as anybody with sense knows, the only real basic belief is in the Easter Bunny. I'd like to see Plantinga prove otherwise.
Cheerful Charlie
Quote from: "Chaoslord2004"Quote from: "GurrenLagann"I recently (as of the last 2 months) became interested in and began studying some areas of philosophy (Ayn Rand notwithstanding)
Well, I wouldn't consider Rand a philosopher...
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Oh I have empathy for other people and the fact that they have different positions than I, but it is in direct conflict here with my great dislike of practically all things Bill Craig.
He's not a very good philosopher, frankly. There are many good theistic philosophers. Alvin Plantinga, for example, is a very skilled philosopher.
I will have to disgree here. I find Plantinga too often uses strawmen arguments.
Cheerful Charlie
Quote from: "Sal1981"Quote from: "Chaoslord2004"Quote from: "Plu"Show me a proper definition of god, and I'll look for a P & ~P.
A metaphysically perfect being that is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omnipresent.
Has this been covered before how they would be internally contradictory?
Yes, its an ancient idea that has been argued for centuries. The problem of evil from Epicururus for example. If God is all power and good, why does evil exist? If God is omniscient then we can have no free will. If God predestines all, doesn't that make God responsible for moral evil. Augustine gave up on free will and Calvin and Luther followed. How to square all of this? God is inscrutable. Which is no answer. Luther wrote a number of sermons stating a Christian must eliminate his sense of reason.
Luther's book on free will, "The Bondage of the Will" is a real eye opener to see Luther struggle with this. Islam also struggles with this and usually just abandons any attempt to deal with the issues.
Again, it may be asked — Why does He not then change, in His motion, those evil wills which He moves? This belongs to those secrets of Majesty, where "His judgments are past finding out." Nor is it ours to search into, but to adore these mysteries. If "flesh and blood" here take offence and murmur, let it murmur, but it will be just where it was before. God is not, on that account, changed! And if numbers of the wicked be offended and "go away," yet, the elect shall remain!
...
Sect. XCIV. — BUT it is this, that seems to give the greatest offence to common sense or natural reason, — that the God, who is set forth as being so full of mercy and goodness, should, of His mere will, leave men, harden them, and damn them, as though He delighted in the sins, and in the great and eternal torments of the miserable. To think thus of God, seems iniquitous, cruel, intolerable; and it is this that has given offence to so many and great men of so many ages.
And who would not be offended? I myself have been offended more than once, even unto the deepest abyss of desperation; nay, so far, as even to wish that I had never been born a man; that is, before I was brought to know how healthful that desperation was, and how near it was unto grace. Here it is, that there has been so much toiling and labouring, to excuse the goodness of God, and to accuse the will of man
- Luther
Does Luther's answer here convince you?
Time
Augustine in his Confessions, Book 10 states God must be beyond and outside time. If so all exists at once and was created at once. Again, we have no free will. All moral evil is God's doing.
The problem of God and time is still being very actively debated. If god is within time and is affected by time, where does time come from?
And much, much more.
Cheerful Charlie
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"If you were conversatin' with Craig, how would you respond to that, er, argument?
I'd remind him that it's belief in God, not knowledge of God, that's considered basic - then ask him if belief in his god is so basic, why the vast majority of people on the planet DON'T believe in his god.