Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Faith Without Reason (A Response to Richard Dawkins, et al)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    First and foremost fallacy in the above is nothing in philosophy nor theology of the nature of belief can possibly be 100% either way. The same is true that the existence of a source some call God(s) can neither be proven to exist nor not exist. Truth-claims follow in the same vein. You cannot know 100% that a philosophical nor theological truth-claim is true nor false.
    Then you cannot know that that philosophical truth-claim you just made is 100% true. Which means that it is possible that there are philosophical or theological truth-claims that can be known to be 100% true or 100% false, and the only way we can know what they are is by actually examining them.

    So your statement is practically useless, and you can't use it as a universal shield to hide behind and avoid the logical consequences of a philosophical or theological claim.
    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
      Then you cannot know that that philosophical truth-claim you just made is 100% true. Which means that it is possible that there are philosophical or theological truth-claims that can be known to be 100% true or 100% false, and the only way we can know what they are is by actually examining them.

      So your statement is practically useless, and you can't use it as a universal shield to hide behind and avoid the logical consequences of a philosophical or theological claim.
      False, I never claimed anything to be 100% true or false. In fact reasonable certainty is the best we can do. I am reasonably certain that all philosophical nor theological claims cannot be 100% true nor false. It is also reasonably certain that my statements cannot be 100% true nor false, but to end the discussion here is foolishness.
      Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-05-2015, 01:31 PM.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
        Then you cannot know that that philosophical truth-claim you just made is 100% true. Which means that it is possible that there are philosophical or theological truth-claims that can be known to be 100% true or 100% false, and the only way we can know what they are is by actually examining them.

        So your statement is practically useless, and you can't use it as a universal shield to hide behind and avoid the logical consequences of a philosophical or theological claim.
        Your the one engaging in useless 'fallacy of absolutism' to divert the discussion from the topic. Discussions of absolute values (100%) of truth values do not contribute to the discussion. I originally objected to its use in another post, and I do not resort to this foolishness.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #34
          For the curious: there's a blogpost that rebuts the OP's point and places the OP in the context of Plantinga's broader epistemology. The post is here: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=10551

          In my posts in reply to the OP, I've made some criticism similar to that in the above blogpost.
          "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Jichard View Post
            For the curious: there's a blogpost that rebuts the OP's point and places the OP in the context of Plantinga's broader epistemology. The post is here: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=10551

            In my posts in reply to the OP, I've made some criticism similar to that in the above blogpost.
            Tyler Wunder does an excellent job, and basically follows the same line of reasoning that I have used in the old Tweb in threads concerning Plantinga's arguments for the existence of God, and against Philosophical Naturalism. A new ploy in recent apologists posting here is that Plantinga does not actually argue against Naturalism to prove God exists.

            Originally posted by ShrimpMaster
            The point of Plantinga's project with WCD is to make Christianity "intellectually acceptable". If it does that, then he has done his job.
            Originally posted by seer
            I don't think you understand what Plantinga is saying at all. He is not claiming that his argument defeats atheism or other beliefs.
            In reality Plantinga tries to argue both that, Christianity is "intellectually acceptable," and his arguments defeat Philosophical Naturalism.
            Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-08-2015, 06:04 AM.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              In reality Plantinga tries to argue both that, Christianity is "intellectually acceptable," and his arguments defeat Philosophical Naturalism.
              Nonsense Shuny, ShrimpMaster did not post his argument against naturalism. That was not even mentioned in the OP and is a COMPLETELY different argument.
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                Appealing to authority without a coherent argument. Dawkins is professional and widely published, and hundreds of atheist philosophers are well known professionals and philosophers like Jaakko Hintikka, John Earman, Robert Kane, and widely published, that does not mean I would follow their line hook line and sinker. I do not believe in their arguments nor am I an atheist, because of their impressive credentials.
                When did Robert Kane become an atheist?

                I see nothing of the sort

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Nonsense Shuny, ShrimpMaster did not post his argument against naturalism. That was not even mentioned in the OP and is a COMPLETELY different argument.
                  Let ShrimpMaster respond to his quote if he objects, and you respond to yours.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Cornell View Post
                    When did Robert Kane become an atheist?

                    I see nothing of the sort
                    My bad I misread the list.

                    http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1294
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      Let ShrimpMaster respond to his quote if he objects, and you respond to yours.

                      Are you having one of your episodes again Shuny? ShrimpMaster never brought up Plantinga's argument against naturalism - so why are you?
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by ShrimpMaster View Post
                        You are unjustified if you do not have a truth objection to Christianity.
                        What exactly is a truth objection?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Sorry for the delayed response. I have not had the time to respond.

                          I would like to put a more in-depth response, but I think the last few posts have been slightly misleading. I think we can understand better if we are able to understand the objection that Plantinga is responding to. The objection is that there is something "inconsistent" with the intellectual life of a Christian that would make it inconsistent with reality of some sort. Realize that Plantinga does not need to provide a proof of the model he is supplying. In order for Plantinga's model to be successful he just needs it to be possible. That is really all the objection calls for. If Plantinga's model is even possible, then it furnishes an answer to the objection.

                          JRichard: your responses are mostly around the basicality of beliefs, but I don't see that as a strong objection to Plantinga's model. It is mostly because all the criteria you supply is arbitrary. Futher, even if you do provide a grounding for PBB without God does that actually handle Plantinga's model? I don't think so. As long as Plantinga's model is even possible, then he has answered the objection. Plantinga's model does not even need to be the strongest model possible. It just needs to be possible.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Are you having one of your episodes again Shuny? ShrimpMaster never brought up Plantinga's argument against naturalism - so why are you?
                            It is part of Plantinga's over all argument for the existence of God.
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by ShrimpMaster View Post
                              Sorry for the delayed response. I have not had the time to respond.

                              I would like to put a more in-depth response, but I think the last few posts have been slightly misleading. I think we can understand better if we are able to understand the objection that Plantinga is responding to. The objection is that there is something "inconsistent" with the intellectual life of a Christian that would make it inconsistent with reality of some sort. Realize that Plantinga does not need to provide a proof of the model he is supplying. In order for Plantinga's model to be successful he just needs it to be possible. That is really all the objection calls for. If Plantinga's model is even possible, then it furnishes an answer to the objection.

                              JRichard: your responses are mostly around the basicality of beliefs, but I don't see that as a strong objection to Plantinga's model. It is mostly because all the criteria you supply is arbitrary. Futher, even if you do provide a grounding for PBB without God does that actually handle Plantinga's model? I don't think so. As long as Plantinga's model is even possible, then he has answered the objection. Plantinga's model does not even need to be the strongest model possible. It just needs to be possible.
                              Unfortunately this is the weakest possible argument, which is the reason a said that his argument could be applied to many possible beliefs including atheism.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by ShrimpMaster View Post
                                Hello all,

                                The time of the champions of atheism is slowly passing away. Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Samuel Harris, Laurence Krauss, etc, etc... These names are the popularizers of atheism for the previous 10+ years. A common theme among these individuals is an objection of this sort; I may not know whether Christianity (or another religion) is true, but I do know that it is irrational, or stupid, or silly, or just plain 'wrong-headed' to believe. This was put forth best by Freud and Marx. Freud would equate Christian belief as "wishful thinking" and Marx thought Christianity was a result of the deprivations of Capitalism. Is there any weight in this type of argument? Some see it as a more modest claim, because it does not deal with the de facto (truth) objections regarding Christianity, but it is a de jure objection to Christian belief. My question and the question Alvin Plantinga raises in his book Warranted Christian Belief (2000) is whether this type of objection holds water.

                                Here are some notes before you start pounding on your keyboard: 1) A majority of my reference material will come from Alvin Plantinga's book Warranted Christian Belief (2000) 2) I would say Alvin Plantinga is the leading epistemologist that is alive today among secular and non-secular epistemologists. I would just ask to have some respect as you critique his thoughts or at least my representation of his thoughts. 3) I am most interested in Christianity, so any remarks regarding other religions I probably won't respond to unless relevant to the discussion

                                Onto the good stuff. My claim (and the claim of Alvin Plantinga's book) is that there is no de jure objection to Christianity a part from a de facto objection. That is to say that you cannot say Christianity is stupid, or silly, or irrational to believe, without also objecting to the truth of Christianity. No longer can an educated individual say they do not know whether Christianity is true, but they do know it is irrational, without also objecting to the truth of Christianity.

                                How do we arrive at this conclusion? Well, Alvin Plantinga puts forth a model through which humanity can come to have knowledge regarding Christianity that defeats defeaters (yes I meant that twice) put forth by modern atheism (a defeater-defeater). Take the following example, an individual living under the Atheist/Communist party of China or North Korea that does not have Christian material available to him. If he is a Christian, but has no material to support his conclusion (like the Kalam Cosmological Argument, or Teleological Argument, etc...) is he rationally obliged to forgo his belief in Christianity because he cannot rebut his opponents view? The model provided by Plantinga supports such a case.

                                Plantinga calls it the Aquinas/Calvin model (A/C model). Aquinas and Calvin both made reference to a sensus divinitatus in their work or a 'sense of the divine'. This is a sense much like the way in which your nose can tell the difference between food and vomit. How exactly does it function? Imagine you are walking through the woods and come upon a beautiful vista of the Cascade Mountains. The sensus divinitatus would then occasion the belief that God made these mountains. Clarification: this is not an inference from another belief like, the mountains are super beautiful, therefore, God exists. The sensus divinitatus specifically occasions the belief "these mountains were made by God". Why is this significant? In short, this provides a furnishing for the proper basicality of the belief in God. In the school of thought called classical foundationalism there is a set of beliefs considered 'properly basic'. This would include beliefs like 'the external world exists', 'my friend has a mind and is not a robot', 'I ate a pancake for breakfast', etc... Why is this important? Because beliefs concerning the past or the external world are axiomatic. In Plantinga's reformed epistemology he goes to include the belief in God as a properly basic belief.

                                Skip some details regarding the book...

                                Alright, so how do we get from the belief in God as properly basic to full-blooded Christian belief? We have the instigation of the Holy Spirit. In Plantinga's book the Holy Spirit provides the knowledge concerning Christian belief (i.e. Jesus is divine, Jesus died for my sins, Jesus is the second member of the Trinity, etc..). How does the Holy Spirit do this? Through faith. According to Plantinga the Holy Spirit provides the faith by which a believer comes to not only have the appropriate knowledge concerning Christianity, but they also (and importantly) obtain the appropriate affections toward God (i.e. God loves me, God cares for my life, God desires to know me, etc...). [Off topic remark: faith has actually always been considered a type of knowledge throughout the ages. It is only recently that it has taken on the poor rhetoric of modern atheism by reference of "blind faith", "leap of faith", etc...]

                                We now have the material to answer our first question. On Plantinga's model there is no de jure objection a part from a de facto objection regarding Christianity because the Holy Spirit furnishes the believer with the faith (or knowledge) to defeat the defeaters of the objectors. Thanks for your time and I look forward to your questions.
                                Plantinga is miles ahead of me when it comes to philosophy/theology/etc. I'm a college student who studies NT after only recently becoming a Christian, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

                                However, Plantinga's reformed epistemology seems, to me at least, like a disaster. On just a very surface level, I think it's open to the (unfair) caricature of "Christianity is true because I feel it's true," which is a statement I think anyone who's read any of the pop atheist screeds happens to have heard. On a deeper level, I'm an evidentialist. I think we ought to believe in things we have good evidence for. Now what actually constitutes evidence is a different question, but the simple dodge of "there's no evidence for x" seems to a) not define what evidence is and b) fails to explain how the evidence presented is not representative of the point. Therefore, as an evidentialist, I don't really see how "the internal witness of the Holy Spirit" is not a circular argument. Well, how do you know the internal witness of the Holy Spirit? By having the internal witness of the Holy Spirit?

                                I might be a little bit overly harsh, but as someone who's not particularly blessed with a sensus divinatus, I don't see how such a claim can be justified. But, perhaps that's why I'm a Christian. I see Christianity as being eminently refutable, simply produce Jesus' body.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                14 responses
                                61 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                78 responses
                                414 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X