Fundamental Question in the Philosophy of Religion

[Bodhi]

Nope, you never replied to my original reply to your OP.

[bohemian]

[ QUOTE ]
Your foundationalism is so out of step with contemporary epistemology that you made me choke when I read your first post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite the opposite actually.

You remind me of those undergraduates who always argue without ever engaging or understanding the issue ("sir, how come I got C minus? It's NOT fair!").

[Bodhi]

Do you even have a graduate degree in philosophy? Where from? I took a grad seminar in epistemology with Hanna Ginsburg here at Cal and it sounds like you have no clue about the contemporary issues at hand here.

[bohemian]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty unwilling to accept the idea of "foundational beliefs."

As things stand, then is it because we believe the two second hypothesis is false despite evidence that we call it a foundational belief? How does that make it foundational? Is it more that a world-view would come crashing down were the 2 second hypothesis to be accepted?

I'm entertaining the idea for the sake of argument. I still believe that it's nonsense because it's one of those untestable, useless, brain-in-a-vat scenarios that borrows language in a way that has no connection to normal use. Moreover, because (according to you) nothing justifies not believing the 2 second theory, it seems like we're treating beliefs as building blocks instead of a group to be tested together against experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

Simplistic and untenable.
How do you test beliefs "together against" experience if they emerge as a result of it in the first place.

[bohemian]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you even have a graduate degree in philosophy? Where from? I took a grad seminar in epistemology with Hanna Ginsburg here at Cal and it sounds like you have no clue about the contemporary issues at hand here.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Hanna Ginsburg"? lol Is that supposed to be a huge name in religious epistemology?

University of Toronto, the biggest and one of the best philosophy departments in north america.

You obviously have no clue about contemporary epistemology in the philosophy of religion.

[bohemian]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have a graduate degree in philosophy,

[/ QUOTE ]

Figures.

[bohemian]

[ QUOTE ]
Nope, you never replied to my original reply to your OP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure did.

[Bodhi]

To be clear, I see very little argument in your OP, that's why I'm being hard on you. The moves I see you make look like this:

Do we need to have evidence for every belief?
Suppose yes. Every belief's justification is another belief, therefore there would be an infinite chain of justifying beliefs, and that can't be right.

Therefore, we don't need evidence for every belief which is to say that some of them are foundational.

So why can't it be right that there's an infinite chain of justifying beliefs? So far I so no independent argument on this point, except for some vague attempt to flatter our intuition or common sense.

I have my own ideas about epistemology, but you haven't given a satisfactory explanation of your OP, and you've simply lowered yourself with your claptrap about how great a graduate degree is and how undergrads whine. Perhaps it appeared like I was being unfair or ignoring the content in the first place, but if you look over the history of this thread you will see that you ingored my original reply and never bothered to answer. Then, when I brough it up later, you dismissed me. F u, and I mean that in the nicest way possible. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

If we both like philosophy then I think we can come to some understanding here.

[bohemian]

[ QUOTE ]
So why can't it be right that there's an infinite chain of justifying beliefs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Glad that you're finally engaging the argument.

So I'd like you to pick a position on the question "Does God exist?". State it. And then please, post an infinite chain of justifying beliefs.

[Bodhi]

Now you really have me confused. What do you test your beliefs against besides experience?