For CalJust: Regarding Plantinga

Originally posted by RJHinds
I thank God that the common man can just look around and with common sense understand that God must exist because of the existence of His creations.

What you are talking about is teleological evidence -- putatively strong, obvious, and readily available to us -- from which one infers to the existence of God. That would just be an example of responsible and well-evidentially-backed belief (if such teleological evidence happened to actually exist). That is uninteresting in the current context, since everyone already agrees that well-evidentially-backed belief can count as warranted belief. Rather, the topic here relates to whether or not theistic belief can still be warranted even if it has no evidential backing in the sense that the belief formation is not based on inference from evidential considerations. Again, Plantinga is not talking about belief inferred on the basis of "common sense" teleological evidence, or any other kind of propositional evidence. He is talking about theistic belief that forms non-inferentially through a mechanism like the supposed divine sensorium. I am perfectly willing to grant Plantinga that theistic belief could form non-inferentially. The further question, however, is under what conditions could such belief be warranted for the individual. I see no such conditions, and I do not think Plantinga's model for such warrant is viable.

Originally posted by CalJust
Hi LJ,

Sorry for the late reply. I did actually start to write, then had to leave and lost my entire response since it wasn't saved. (Which means it went to hell! 🙂 Get it?)

I have to warn you, though, that when you engage me in philosophical battle, you are fighting with an unarmed man. Philosophical Quarterly is not on my regular reading lis ...[text shortened]... goal to strive for, that would be it, but clearly I am still very far from it.

In peace

CJ

Thank you for taking the time to read the articles. It sounds like you agree with Koons' objection that no belief could be "properly basic" in the sense that Plantinga means, since the warrant for non-inferential beliefs will still depend on whatever warrant there is for the inferentially-articulated background theories in which they are imbedded. As you imply, if our background theories are different, then our beliefs imbedded in those theories are likely to be different too in various ways. But, if this is all correct, then it only goes to underscore the value in the practices of justification and in the give and take of evidential reasons in debates on these topics. After all, those background theories are inferentially structured and the warrant thereof will surely depend on evidential considerations. Of course, those theories may be quite entrenched and protected for various reasons; perhaps in those cases, your prescription of tolerance and argument avoidance may be a wise one.

Originally posted by josephw
I'm nobody in the sense that we are all human, and we each have the same equality of value, that nobody is better than another in the eyes of God.

Of course that doesn't take into account the value we place on ourselves based on what we esteem as valuable.

[b]".., you bring interpretation to it based on your knowledge and experience and desires." ...[text shortened]... s existence is all creation. So, based on God's Word, now I know. Not of me, or you, but of God.[/b]

Honestly, I do not really understand your questions and comments here. This thread topic has nothing to do with the subject of "choice". It is related to non-inferentially formed beliefs and justification conditions thereof.

Originally posted by CalJust
This is where we mostly get stuck- who is RIGHT?

I submit that most often we CAN both be right!

Remember the six blind men and the elephant? One (holding the trunk) says an elephant is like a snake. Another (holding a leg) says No, it is more like a tree.... And so on, you get the idea. So who of the six is RIGHT? All of them!

Even Paul said we " se ...[text shortened]...

It takes some practice to hold two opposing views in balance, but you should try it sometime!

The one holding the trunk of the elephant says its a snake? And he's right?

Reality check time Cal!

Originally posted by LemonJello
Honestly, I do not really understand your questions and comments here. This thread topic has nothing to do with the subject of "choice". It is related to non-inferentially formed beliefs and justification conditions thereof.

Lemon, the post you are replying to is my reply to twitehead's post, which was a reply to another post I made.

I guess you missed my reply to your opening post on page one.

Originally posted by josephw
Lemon, the post you are replying to is my reply to twitehead's post, which was a reply to another post I made.

I guess you missed my reply to your opening post on page one.

No, I read all your posts on page one and replied as such: I do not understand your questions and comments throughout.

Originally posted by LemonJello
No, I read all your posts on page one and replied as such: I do not understand your questions and comments throughout.

I don't understand why you don't understand.

I'm not sure about you. Do you believe there is a God? If you don't mind my asking.

Originally posted by josephw
I don't understand why you don't understand.

I'm not sure about you. Do you believe there is a God? If you don't mind my asking.

Well, it's not for lack of trying that I do not understand. I read your questions several times and just do not understand what you are trying to ask. For instance, you first asked this:

So, are we to believe, (have a belief) based on evidence, or is it rational to accept that reason alone is sufficient for a belief?

But I do not understand the question since evidence and reason are not exclusive. So, I moved on to your next statement of the question to see if that would clarify things for me:

Do we engage in debate concerning the validity of an argument generated by the lack of evidential knowledge? Or is our reason for cause of the validity of an argument sufficient?

But this is even more confusing for me than the first. I am not even sure where to begin. So, I moved on to your concise statement of your point:

What I'm trying to say is this: We have a choice.

But, like I said, this thread has nothing to do with the subject of "choice". Choices are about acting from practical reasons concerning whether to do this or that or concerning what is the best course of action, etc. That has nothing to do with anything here. When we talk about evidence here, we are talking about theoretical considerations that bear on the question of whether or not something is the case.

Hence, I do not understand what you are talking about throughout this thread.

I'm not sure about you. Do you believe there is a God? If you don't mind my asking.

No.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Well, it's not for lack of trying that I do not understand. I read your questions several times and just do not understand what you are trying to ask. For instance, you first asked this:

So, are we to believe, (have a belief) based on evidence, or is it rational to accept that reason alone is sufficient for a belief?

But I do not u ...[text shortened]... m not sure about you. Do you believe there is a God? If you don't mind my asking.[/quote]

No.

No? You don't believe there is a God, that there is a creator of all that exists, that all that exists is the evidence for a creator God.

That is why you don't understand me. Your powers of cognition are severely inhibited because you deny the existence of God. Seems outrageous to you that I should say that, I know. I'd feel the same way if you inverted the concept and made the same observation about me. But don't let the extremity of that assertion deter you. Please.

One of us is wrong. What a strange world we live in. I want to follow up on this if you don't mind, but I just ran out of time for this. We should, logically, rationally be able to resolve this issue . I have faith that we can. Seems such a simple matter to me.

After all, what's the point in debating anything if we're not going to find resolution. At least that's my perspective, but I won't hold it against you if you want to opt out.

Originally posted by josephw
No? You don't believe there is a God, that there is a creator of all that exists, that all that exists is the evidence for a creator God.

That is why you don't understand me. Your powers of cognition are severely inhibited because you deny the existence of God. Seems outrageous to you that I should say that, I know. I'd feel the same way if you inverted t ...[text shortened]... olution. At least that's my perspective, but I won't hold it against you if you want to opt out.

I agree that one of us is right and one of us is wrong. And I also agree with you that this issue is resolvable through rational discussion. So what do you have in mind? The best way to approach it would be through a quasi-structured debate: first, we reach mutual agreement on the definition of 'God' at issue; then we each present in turn our best arguments for our respective positions; then each present in turn rebuttals if needed; then closing thoughts if needed, etc.

Originally posted by josephw
The one holding the trunk of the elephant says its a snake? And he's right?

Reality check time Cal!

Remember, he is BLIND, and the part that he was given to hold IS ALL THAT IS AVAILABLE TO HIM!

No analogy "stands on all fours" but the point of this simple parable would be that it could be helpful for communication and understanding if we were to move around a bit, and try the other's position.

NOriginally posted by LemonJello
But, if this is all correct, then it only goes to underscore the value in the practices of justification and in the give and take of evidential reasons in debates on these topics. After all, those background theories are inferentially structured and the warrant thereof will surely depend on evidential considerations.

I totally agree that it can be very worthwhile if two parties are willing to do so in mutual agreementto examine rationally our basis for belief, together with our underlying Background Theories.

Unfortunately, most parties are too emotionally invested ini their position (be it belief in God or Evolution) that such a "detached" debate is almost impossible.

I have been present at debates between Palestinians and Israeli settlers, many years ago which showed me that often this gulf is impossible to bridge.

Note the "Ken Ham" thread, and RJHinds' responses. IF he were to concede any one point on the video, it would collapse his Creation model, his worldview, his Faith (because it is grounded in anti-Evilution) and hence destroy his hole life. He cannot give an inch, because he is entirely invested in it. What hope, therefore, to engage him in "give and take of evidential reason"?

Originally posted by CalJust
I totally agree that it can be very worthwhile if two parties are willing to do so in mutual agreementto examine rationally our basis for belief, together with our underlying Background Theories.

Unfortunately, most parties are too emotionally invested ini their position (be it belief in God or Evolution) that such a "detached" debate is almost im ...[text shortened]... ely invested in it. What hope, therefore, to engage him in "give and take of evidential reason"?

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.

There is only one thing in these sorts of discussions that I feel I have been a fool to suffer in the past and have resolved to no longer tolerate, and that is overt disingenuity/mendacity. In my years on this forum, there is only one poster that makes my personal blacklist on such grounds; only one that I simply refuse to engage with any further. Moving forward, I doubt I would refuse to engage with another on the grounds that I have low expectation that he or she would be receptive to countervailing evidential considerations (of course, I still think it is important to "pick our battles" and prioritize our time and energies). I think I would only refuse to engage on the grounds of clearly demonstrated disingenuity.

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.

There is only one thing in these sorts of discussions that I feel I have been a fool to suffer in the past and have resolved to no longer tolerate, and that is overt disingenuity/mendacity. In my years ...[text shortened]... es). I think I would only refuse to engage on the grounds of clearly demonstrated disingenuity.

In my years on this forum, there is only one poster that makes my personal blacklist on such grounds; only one that I simply refuse to engage with any further.
Hey, guys: who do you think he's talking about here, huh?
Guys??

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]In my years on this forum, there is only one poster that makes my personal blacklist on such grounds; only one that I simply refuse to engage with any further.
Hey, guys: who do you think he's talking about here, huh?
Guys??[/b]

Why, GrampyBobby, of course. 😀