Carrikature says: The basic criteria are treated as givens despite being anything but. It doesn't really matter, though, because I don't claim there is no warrant or justification for belief. On the contrary, I think there is plenty of warrant. I just think that warrant relies on criteria that, like those you provided in that argument, I don't accept. Your support for them there is 100% appeal to (unspecified) authority.
let's just walk through it andf see
Decision Making Paradigm:
Not proof that God exists but warrant for belief. Justification argument.
he has some little quip of wisdom of this of course how could he not? there's nothing wrong with informing the reader of what Paradigm I think I'm using.
God Corrolate: The co-determinate is like the Derridian trace, or like a fingerprint. It's the accompanying sign that is always found with the thing itself. In other words, like trailing the invisible man in the snow. You can't see the invisible man, but you can see his footprints, and wherever he is in the snow his prints will always follow.
We cannot produce direct observation of God, but we can find the "trace" or the co-determinate, the effects of God in the world.The only question at that point is "How do we know this is the effect, or the accompanying sign of the divine? The answer is in the argument below. Here let us set out some general parameters:
We cannot produce direct observation of God, but we can find the "trace" or the co-determinate, the effects of God in the world.The only question at that point is "How do we know this is the effect, or the accompanying sign of the divine? The answer is in the argument below. Here let us set out some general parameters:
what here is treated like a given? of course first it might be good to ask are givens always wrong? can't some things be given?
We can set up criteria based upoIn what we would expect from encounter with the divine: N
A. Life Transforming and vital in a positive life=affirming sense
B. It would give us a sense of the transcendent and the divine.
C. No alternate or naturalistic causality could be proven
A. Life Transforming and vital in a positive life=affirming sense
B. It would give us a sense of the transcendent and the divine.
C. No alternate or naturalistic causality could be proven
This is probably what he thinks is being presented as a given .,is it? see the part where it says "we can expect...?" Clearly it's not a given but is the result of certain expectations. If those are reasonable then it's not just a given and there's nothing wrong with it. notice he has not reason why they are thought to be givens. I think because he doesn't know what paradigms are or criteria in an argument do.
obviously they not merely gi en because I justify them right here:
These criteria are based upon the writings of the great mystics and religious thinkers of history, especially in the Christian tradition, and distilled into /theory by W.T. Stace. The theory is verified and validated by several hundred studies using various methodologies all of them published in peer reviewed journals. The following argument is based upon the findings of these studies. All of this, the studies, the methods used, Stace's theory, these studies and their methodologies are discussed in depth in The Trace of God: a Rational Warrant for Belief by Joseph Hinman, (all proceeds go to non profit) available on Amazon
they are going to be established and justified by the study findings that I'm going to present.
;come to the argument itself I'll deal with it in a second post
Comment