Knowledge of God's existence properly basic?

[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?

[Plu]

"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.

[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.

[Zatoichi]

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?

[Chaoslord2004]

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 :)

[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.

[Sal1981]

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."

[aitm]

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."

[Chaoslord2004]

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...

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.

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.

[GurrenLagann]

Well, I wouldn't consider Rand a philosopher...

That was my point. :P *Joke fail*

He'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).

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.

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. ;)

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.

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.

[Gerard]

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!

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

[aitm]

The question is whether the proper basicality of belief in God is like other cases of plausible proper basicality

 :Hangman:

[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.

[Gerard]

Knowledge is knowledge. It is nothing else than just that.

Gerard

[Gerard]

And there is a difference between knowledge and belief (aka faith). That stands, whatever the excuses are!

Gerard