For CalJust: Regarding Plantinga

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Why, GrampyBobby, of course. 😀

Damn GB: always stealing the thunder...

I'd never been personally blacklisted before.
I just knew it was too good to be true.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I understand your point, but I guess I do not share the same degree of defeatist attitude, even when confronted by such instances as RJHinds, et al.

I said somewhere else that one of the things that keep puzzling me is how two parties can draw totally different conclusions from the same set of data or evidence.

In this current thread the topic is evidence for or against the existence of god, or a god, and the reasoning process that takes us to that conclusion. It is further assumed that everybody has access to the same data set. However, tradition, background, culture, all play a major role in forming that conclusion.

What I would be interested in is to take a theoretical example, say the Israeli - Palestinian question, and examine how you would suggest that your rational empirical approach would enable the problem to be approached in a way that both parties would have to agree with the final solution so obtained.

To see who is "right" in this situation would, imho, be just as difficult to achieve as in, say, the "theist/atheist" debate.

In fact, if you could describe a recipe for logically tackling such issues, the Nobel Prize would be the least of your accolades!

Originally posted by CalJust
I said somewhere else that one of the things that keep puzzling me is how two parties can draw totally different conclusions from the same set of data or evidence.

I have to say that on many topics, it is possible to tell that some people draw conclusions for reasons other than evidential ones. For example, when it comes to global warming, gun control, and US politics, you will often notice that there are quite a lot of people who hold a position but cannot defend it rationally. They make an argument, and when proved wrong, they show no surprise whatsoever, but instead find another argument - or simply deny that the first argument was proved wrong. In the case of global warming I have often found that the root of the matter is that they believe that if they admit to global warming they will have to do something about it and they are not willing to do something. In the case of politics, I think party membership is often seen as a cultural thing so they stick to their party line whether they agree with it or not.

What I would be interested in is to take a theoretical example, say the Israeli - Palestinian question, and examine how you would suggest that your rational empirical approach would enable the problem to be approached in a way that both parties would have to agree with the final solution so obtained.

To see who is "right" in this situation would, imho, be just as difficult to achieve as in, say, the "theist/atheist" debate.
The problem with the Israel/Palestine situation is that it is not a problem of 'right' and 'wrong' and evidential considerations are of no value whatsoever.
The solution includes:
1. Make it politically undesirable to continue the conflict instead of the current situation where continued conflict is in politicians interests. (this applies globally not just to local politicians).
2. Stop segregation. As we know well in South Africa, segregation leads to conflict.

Originally posted by twhitehead

The solution includes:
1. Make it politically undesirable to continue the conflict instead of the current situation where continued conflict is in politicians interests. (this applies globally not just to local politicians).
2. Stop segregation. As we know well in South Africa, segregation leads to conflict.

The problem with the Israel/Palestine situation is that it is not a problem of 'right' and 'wrong' and evidential considerations are of no value whatsoever.

I think it is very much a matter of right and wrong. Each party cites history as "having been there first". Each party says that they have the moral right to that sliver of land - and way before 1948 ; especially Jerusalem.

Some background: in my field of Renewable Energy R&D I have relationships both with the Royal Scientific Society in Amman, as well as the Ben Gurion University of the Negev in Be'ersheba. I thus have good friends on both sides of the Jordan River, and have had long discussions on this topic with "extremists" on both sides.

What I am actually talking about is NOT how to practically solve the current impasse, in which case your two suggestions will certainly work. (Somebody else said the problem would resolve itself immediately if the US would withdraw its support from Israel.)

But that is not what I meant. This would solve the SURFACE issue, and may even result in compromise, i.e. peaceful coexistence. However, my point is how to get both sides to see something called the TRUTH, if such a thing exists. To come to a rock bottom basic assurance and agreement that such-and-such represents REALITY.

Because (to take it back to the theism/atheism debate) to get to a "final solution" both parties would have to be agreed in their heart of hearts that the conclusion reached is the correct one.

The question is whether such an agreement is possible by rational argument, or by some kind of emotional, psychological, humanistic concessions?

Am I making any sense?

Originally posted by CalJust
I think it is very much a matter of right and wrong. Each party cites history as "having been there first". Each party says that they have the moral right to that sliver of land - and way before 1948 ; especially Jerusalem.

Both parties are wrong on that count, - and racist as well. Despite it being a popular belief that 'being there first' gives you and your descendants, right to land ownership in perpetuity - this is simply not the case. If it were, then the Jews would have to:
1. Prove that they were the biological descendants (not just cultural) of the original Jewish tribe.
2. Prove that they were the only descendants, or agree to share it with all other such descendants.
3. Give up the land to the descendants of the people that the original Jews took the land from.
4. Track down the descendants of anyone who might have been there before that.
etc.
Worst of all, they claim their rights largely on religious grounds not descent. They are basically saying that because they are the same religion as whoever built some building, then they are now part owners of that building. I could of course announce that one of the buildings in Jerusalem holds special meaning in pastafarianism and therefore I have a moral right to it too.

I think if you had a serious discussion with either side you would quickly discover that the citing of history is mostly just cover for much more emotional beliefs rather than rational beliefs.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Both parties are wrong on that count, - and racist as well.

I think if you had a serious discussion with either side you would quickly discover that the citing of history is mostly just cover for much more emotional beliefs rather than rational beliefs.

On that score I certainly agree with you - both sides are wrong.

Perhaps the only point that I am making is how difficult, if not impossible, it is to try to separate the emotional issues from the rational ones. In the ME debate, as well as in the "theism" debate.

If it were easy (possible?) then both problems would have been resolved by now to everybody's satisfaction.

Originally posted by CalJust
On that score I certainly agree with you - both sides are wrong.

Perhaps the only point that I am making is how difficult, if not impossible, it is to try to separate the emotional issues from the rational ones. In the ME debate, as well as in the "theism" debate.

If it were easy (possible?) then both problems would have been resolved by now to everybody's satisfaction.

I think that when people have emotional issues rather than rational ones it becomes apparent fairly quickly by the way they argue. However, once you realize that at least one side of a debate has emotional issues - that they are hiding behind supposedly rational claims, then further debate tends to get nowhere.

But I don't really think the Israel situation can be looked at as a debate. It is a lot more complicated than that.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But I don't really think the Israel situation can be looked at as a debate. It is a lot more complicated than that.

Isn't the theism debate as complicated?

And when you have established that there IS a god, you have to determine WHICH god is the right one?

Originally posted by CalJust
Isn't the theism debate as complicated?

And when you have established that there IS a god, you have to determine WHICH god is the right one?

The whole topic of theism is as complicated. Specific questions about theism are not - just as in the Israel issue, I was able to totally destroy one particular claim in one post. If however you had asked 'who does have the right to a given piece of land and why?' then it would have been a much more complicated question, and one I may not be able to answer satisfactorily.

I think the question of whether any god exists, is a broad topic that could be debated effectively. But there are much smaller questions which can be resolved much more easily - such as whether or not the existence of the universe is on its own, evidence for the existence of God. I think that question can be resolved satisfactorily if the participants are willing to be honest.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But there are much smaller questions which can be resolved much more easily - such as whether or not the existence of the universe is on its own, evidence for the existence of God. I think that question can be resolved satisfactorily if the participants are willing to be honest.

The key words here are "satisfactorily" and "honest". You will agree with me that both of these words are very relative.

To RJH, it is "satisfactory" to say: "It says so in the Bible!"

You may know that Buddhism has no Theory of Origins. I find this very unsatisfactory. But it is frustrating to discuss this with my son sometimes, to whom it REALLY does not matter. He would say something like: "If you see a wounded person floating down the river with an arrow in his back, you will rescue him without wondering where he came from." The point being, we are all wounded and should help each other.

My response is that if you see a lot of bodies regularly floating down the river, it is not enough to help them. We must go upstream and try to find out WHERE they come from and WHY.

I have an intellectual need to search for an explanation of the WHERE FROM and WHY.

For me, the existence of the universe DOES point to a creator and a purpose. But I am also pretty sure that I could not convince you intellectually, systematically and philosophically of that fact. The simple (maybe cop-out) reason being that many much more qualified people than I (such as Plantinga) have tried and failed.

So I very much doubt your assertion that the question can "be resolved satisfactorily" given merely the requirement of honesty.

Originally posted by CalJust
The key words here are "satisfactorily" and "honest". You will agree with me that both of these words are very relative.

To RJH, it is "satisfactory" to say: "It says so in the Bible!"

Discussion with RJH is generally futile. But that has nothing to do with the relativity of "satisfactorily" and "honest".

I have an intellectual need to search for an explanation of the WHERE FROM and WHY.
Perfectly reasonable, and shared by most people.

For me, the existence of the universe DOES point to a creator and a purpose.
But as you readily admit, you cannot support this claim with reasoned argument. So I think we can agree that it does not via a logical or reasoned process point to a creator or a purpose. For me, that would be a satisfactory resolution. That you have admitted your reasons for thinking there is a creator or purpose are more intuitive than rational is a sign of your honesty. If you had instead tried to create an argument to support your intuition, it would have quickly become apparent that your argument was invented for this purpose and not the primary reason for your belief.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But as you readily admit, you cannot support this claim with reasoned argument. ... If you had instead tried to create an argument to support your intuition, it would have quickly become apparent that your argument was invented for this purpose and not the primary reason for your belief.[/b]

Agreed.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Both parties are wrong on that count, - and racist as well. Despite it being a popular belief that 'being there first' gives you and your descendants, right to land ownership in perpetuity - this is simply not the case. If it were, then the Jews would have to:
1. Prove that they were the biological descendants (not just cultural) of the original Jewish t ...[text shortened]... ng of history is mostly just cover for much more emotional beliefs rather than rational beliefs.

After the failed rebellion of Bar Kokhba in the Second Century CE, the Roman Emperor Hadrian determined to wipe out the identity of Israel-Judah-Judea. Therefore, he took the name Palastina and imposed it on all the Land of Israel. At the same time, he changed the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina.

After the Roman conquest of Judea, "Palastina" became a province of the pagan Roman Empire and then of the Christian Byzantine Empire, and very briefly of the Zoroastrian Persian Empire. In 638 CE, an Arab-Muslim Caliph took Palastina away from the Byzantine Empire and made it part of an Arab-Mulim Empire. The Arabs, who had no name of their own for this region, adopted the Greco-Roman name Palastina, that they pronounced "Falastin".

In that period, much of the mixed population of Palastina converted to Islam and adopted the Arabic language. They were subjects of a distant Caliph who ruled them from his capital, that was first in Damascus and later in Baghdad. They did not become a nation or an independent state, or develop a distinct society or culture.

In 1099, Christian Crusaders from Europe conquered Palestina-Falastin. After 1099, it was never again under Arab rule. The Christian Crusader kingdom was politically independent, but never developed a national identity. It remained a military outpost of Christian Europe, and lasted less than 100 years. Thereafter, Palestine was joined to Syria as a subject province first of the Mameluks, ethnically mixed slave-warriors whose center was in Egypt, and then of the Ottoman Turks, whose capital was in Istanbul.

During the First World War, the British took Palestine from the Ottoman Turks. At the end of the war, the Ottoman Empire collapsed and among its subject provinces "Palestine" was assigned to the British, to govern temporarily as a mandate from the League of Nations.

http://www.indaweb.com/oil/editorialopinion/tzemach.news.service01l.htm

Britain seized control Palestine in 1917 and was granted mandate over the area by the League of Nations in 1922. In a 1917 letter by Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour and in the League of Nations mandate, the British expressed their desire to create a Jewish state in Palestine.

In 1947, Britain announced that it would end its Palestine mandate no later than Aug. 1, 1948. In November 1947, the United Nations approved a proposal to partition Palestine into separate Jewish and Palestinian states. However, in response to intense opposition to the plan from Arab states, Britain did not implement the partition.

Britain later announced that it would terminate its mandate on May 15, 1948. On May 14, British forces pulled out of Palestine a day early. That afternoon, Jewish leaders assembled at the Tel Aviv Museum to sign the Israeli Declaration of Independence and announce the creation of the first modern Jewish state.

http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/on-this-day/May-June-08/On-this-Day--Israel-Becomes-a-Nation.html

Originally posted by CalJust
I said somewhere else that one of the things that keep puzzling me is how two parties can draw totally different conclusions from the same set of data or evidence.

In this current thread the topic is evidence for or against the existence of god, or a god, and the reasoning process that takes us to that conclusion. It is further assumed that everybody has ...[text shortened]... recipe for logically tackling such issues, the Nobel Prize would be the least of your accolades!

What I would be interested in is to take a theoretical example, say the Israeli - Palestinian question, and examine how you would suggest that your rational empirical approach would enable the problem to be approached in a way that both parties would have to agree with the final solution so obtained.

I would never suggest such a thing. I am in no way committed to the idea that there is some "rational empirical approach" that enables guaranteed agreement between various parties on theoretical matters. That's absurd. All I am committed to here is that there is continued value in the practices of justification, even where there is little expectation that it will result in wholesale agreement. There are many reasons why I think it can carry considerable value even where, in fact, no primary party ends up abandoning their initial position on the topic.

Originally posted by LemonJello
All I am committed to here is that there is continued value in the practices of justification, even where there is little expectation that it will result in wholesale agreement. There are many reasons why I think it can carry considerable value even where, in fact, no primary party ends up abandoning their initial position on the topic.

Hi, LJ, welcome back. I was wondering what had happened to you. You sort of kicked off this thread and then disappeared!

I must ask you to explain a bit more what you mean by value in the practices of justification. In my book justification is very much like rationalisation, i.e. pretending, and arguing, that something is right, when in fact one has a sneeking suspicion that it is not.

For example, I will justify my behaviour in having insulted a colleague, because he "asked for it", when, if I were honest, I would admit that I should not have done so.

What am I missing here? You must be meaning something else.