Fundamental Question in the Philosophy of Religion

[Bodhi]

After the fact dumbass. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[Bodhi]

Well, except reading some William James, I am no doubt not as well versed as you. I am really surprised that your field is so divorced from other areas of epistemology, specifically the last 50 years in the philosophy of language. Surely the two sides would benefit from some exchange of ideas?

I don't think Ginsburg has written anything, nor does she have an interest in, the philosophy of religion. She is simply a Phd here at Cal who had done seminars on epistemology.

[Bodhi]

Well, except reading some William James, I am no doubt not as well versed as you. I am really surprised that your field is so divorced from other areas of epistemology, specifically the last 50 years in the philosophy of language. Surely the two sides would benefit from some exchange of ideas?

I don't think Ginsburg has written anything, nor does she have an interest in, the philosophy of religion. She is simply a Phd here at Cal who has done seminars on epistemology.

[bohemian]

[ QUOTE ]
After the fact dumbass. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

In the firs post, dumbass. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[bohemian]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, except reading some William James, I am no doubt not as well versed as you. I am really surprised that your field is so divorced from other areas of epistemology, specifically the last 50 years in the philosophy of language. Surely the two sides would benefit from some exchange of ideas?

I don't think Ginsburg has written anything, nor does she have an interest in, the philosophy of religion. She is simply a Phd here at Cal who has done seminars on epistemology.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you done any readings in reformed epistemology? (Plantinga and gang?)

[Bodhi]

Bad example, because I'm an agnostic. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

I take it that your request to post an infinite chain of justifying beliefs is rhetorical?

Still, that is how I think belief works regarding the day of the week, the color of the sky, and what happens if you drop an egg on the pavement. For example, "the sky is blue," is justified by my beliefs, it is daylight out, I don't have tinted glasses on, every one else calls this 'blue,' etc. You could then ask for justification for those beliefs, and I would again tell you another story about my beliefs that are consistent with the first. That we never come to a stopping point where no further questions are possible is not an objection.

That belief in God or disbelief in God lacks justifiability is to me an objection against both. On the other hand, I suppose an avid believer or atheist would be willing to take up the challenge and might maintain that there's justification for belief or disbelief.

[Bodhi]

Never heard of them. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] Our seminar read Sellars, McDowell, Davidson, Brandom, Stroud, Evans and Peacocke.

[bohemian]

[ QUOTE ]
Bad example, because I'm an agnostic. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

I take it that your request to post an infinite chain of justifying beliefs is rhetorical?

Still, that is how I think belief works regarding the day of the week, the color of the sky, and what happens if you drop an egg on the pavement. For example, "the sky is blue," is justified by my beliefs, it is daylight out, I don't have tinted glasses on, every one else calls this 'blue,' etc. You could then ask for justification for those beliefs, and I would again tell you another story about my beliefs that are consistent with the first. That we never come to a stopping point where no further questions are possible is not an objection.

That belief in God or disbelief in God lacks justifiability is to me an objection against both. On the other hand, I suppose an avid believer or atheist would be willing to take up the challenge and might maintain that there's justification for belief or disbelief.

[/ QUOTE ]

How are you justified in "telling stories" as you describe? You have a set of beliefs that you use as the foundation/ground for each other's plausibility. This is no different than foundationalism. You have a set of beliefs that justify your story. How do these beliefs get into your set of accepted beliefs? They had to be accepted at some point in time. How did that happen? Moreover, the apparent consistency of your set (i.e. ability to create explantions) says nothing about their truth/falsehood.

Your view is equally unjustifiable.

[maurile]

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

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I'm not exactly sure what "foundational" means in this context and I don't want this to get bogged down in semantics anyway.

Let's phrase it like this.

There are certain beliefs that we all accept that are justified neither by evidence nor by non-circular logic, nor by any combination of the two.

That the world is more than two seconds old is one such belief, but there are others. That inductive reasoning will continue to work in the future, for example.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, although I think pure solipsism amounts to language abuse, I think there are brain-in-a-vat scenarios that are good examples of stuff we disbelieve without evidence.

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]
Substitute "disbelieving" for "not believing," and substitute "No evidence or non-circular logic" for "nothing." Other than that, you've got the right idea.

Most ideas are testable, or can at least be evaluated in accordance with our general experience. Did giant fire-breathing spiders exist on any of the planets orbiting the star SR719015 before it became a white dwarf? Strictly speaking, it's not testable -- but we have enough information about the universe in general to set an extremely low probability for it. So there's no reason to be agnostic on that one.

Some ideas are not testable, and it's appropriate to remain agnostic about them -- which is another way of saying that based on everything we do know, we'd set the probability somewhere close to 50%. For example, assuming Julius Caesar's father owned exactly one dog, was it a male or a female?

Still other ideas, like the two-second-old-world idea, we have absolutely no information about and can't even set any kind of reasonable probability for them. I guess we could choose to be agnostic about all such ideas (the sort of "extreme skepticism" you criticized earlier in the thread) -- but I prefer to reject the two-second-old-world idea on faith. Same with the brain-in-a-vat idea. There are other ideas that I accept on faith, like that inductive reasoning will continue to work tomorrow.

I figured these are the kinds of things the original poster meant by "foundational beliefs," but maybe not. In any event, I don't think "God exists" or "God doesn't exist" are beliefs that anyone should accept or reject on pure faith. I think they are propositions (once the term "God" is sufficiently defined) whose probability can be roughly evaluated in light of our general knowledge of the universe even if, strictly speaking, they are untestable. Like giant fire-breathing spiders.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
So I'd like you to pick a position on the question "Does God exist?".

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not a well-formed question until a definition of "God" is provided. Ask ten people what they think "God" is and you'll get ten different answers.

Let's say I come across some super-powerful being who can move mountains with his pinky. How am I supposed to evaluate whether he qualifies as a God?