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

[Jichard]

I . . . honestly don't care what you think of me, or what you think of Christians in general for that matter (I imagine like many of the antitheists on this forum, you didn't have a glowing view of Christians to begin with). I don't even know who you are. Don't think I've even ever replied to you before. I do know who shunyadragon is though, and I know that he's been very confused for a very long time. seer and I are far from the only two people on this forum to notice his general lack of comprehension and coherency. I think it's sad, and frustrating.

First, I'm not an anti-theist. So I don't know where you pulled that nonsense from

Second, I don't expect you to be be repentant. Like I said, I'm no longer surprised to see some Christians failing to live up to their own religion. If you think your God is OK with you insinuating that someone you don't know has dementia (simply because of their posting style), then that's on your conscience, not mine. I, for one, don't find shuny to be demented. But I do fine seer to be willfully dishonest (which makes it no surprise that he would call shuny demented). Feel free to continue enabling his dishonesty.

In any event, let me know when you and seer are able to join the rest of us in dealing with the substance of this thread, as oppose to discussing with each other how demented you find shuny.

[JonathanL]

First, I'm not an anti-theist. So I don't know where you pulled that nonsense from

Second, I don't expect you to be be repentant. Like I said, I'm no longer surprised to see some Christians failing to live up to their own religion. If you think your God is OK with you insinuating that someone you don't know has dementia (simply because of their posting style), then that's on your conscience, not mine. I, for one, don't find shuny to be demented. But I do fine seer to be willfully dishonest (which makes it no surprise that he would call shuny demented). Feel free to continue enabling his dishonesty.

In any event, let me know when you and seer are able to join the rest of us in dealing with the substance of this thread, as oppose to discussing with each other how demented you find shuny.

"posting style"

Being incoherent isn't a posting style.

[Tassman]

Its gotten to the point where I can't hardly be bothered to reply to shunya anymore. I seriously think he either has reading or cognitive issues. I'd love to ignore him completely, but he has a tendency to take threads off topic with his barely coherent posts.

Clearly Shunya has been effective in countering your arguments to draw such ire upon himself from the purveyors of woo woo.

I suspect it is an age thing - early signs of dementia?

Shameful response.

"posting style"

Being incoherent isn't a posting style.

On topic as always <sacrcasm>

[Adrift]

Adrift, thats a lot of malarky and you know it. It is very obvious that shunya is just as informed on the issues being discussed here as are you.

I've been reading him for near a decade now, and that is far from obvious.

Clearly Shunya has been effective in countering your arguments to draw such ire upon himself from the purveyors of woo woo.

Yeah, that's probably what it is.

[MaxVel]

Adrift, thats a lot of malarky and you know it. It is very obvious that shunya is just as informed on the issues being discussed here as are you. The problem, if you want to call it a problem, is that just like everyone else here on tweb, on ocassion he doesn't articulate his point with perfect clarity as if he were writing an essay. But anyone with a modicum of intelligence can comprehend what he is saying. What you and seer do is to take advantage of those occasions and demean him for it in order to make yourself feel better about not being able to refute his arguments.

JimL, your response, while admirable in the spirit of it's defense of Shunya, does impugn the intelligence and the intellectual honesty of everyone who finds Shunya hard to understand at times, and sees his arguments as less than convincing. That's not exactly showing people how to respond in a better fashion.

[shunyadragon]

JimL, your response, while admirable in the spirit of it's defense of Shunya, does impugn the intelligence and the intellectual honesty of everyone who finds Shunya hard to understand at times, and sees his arguments as less than convincing. That's not exactly showing people how to respond in a better fashion.

MaxVel, those that object to me basically come from a Christian perspective that rejects or only selectively accepts science to suit their world view. They also support old out dated arguments, which are highly circular, for God. Criticism of my posts usually amounts to Trollish ridicule. mindless smilly faces, and ridicule.

Back to the B-Theory of time. This theory was developed to be more compatible with modern Physics, Cosmology, Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. The Newtonian A-Theory fails in this scientific view, beyond everyday mechanical measuring time from moment to moment. The problem with the limited arguments that apply 'actual infinities' or any other concepts of ancient views infinites or finites is they fail in modern science. In particular the concept of 'actual infinites' only can exist within a time/space frame world of our universe, and in the world of Modern science where the B-Theory was developed and a timeless Quantum World exists beyond our universe. The B-Theory of time cannot stand alone, but must be considered in the context of modern Physics, Cosmology, and Quantum Mechanics. That is why arguments like Metcalf's fail and cannot apply to the B-Theory of time.

[Adrift]

Back to the B-Theory of time. This theory was developed to be more compatible with modern Physics, Cosmology, Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. The Newtonian A-Theory fails in this scientific view. The problem with the limited arguments that apply 'actual infinities' or any other concepts of an infinites or finites is they fail in modern science. In particular the concept of 'actual infinites' only can exist within a time/space frame world of our universe, and in the world of Modern science where the B-Theory was developed and a timeless Quantum World exists beyond our universe. The B-Theory of time cannot stand alone, but must be considered in the context of modern Physics, Cosmology, and Quantum Mechanics. That is why arguments like Metcalf's fail and cannot apply to the B-Theory of time.

. . . Wrong thread.

[shunyadragon]

. . . Wrong thread.

Right thread!!!

I will post in the other thread too, but it most definitely applies to this thread too, because of the mindless ranting criticism based on a religious agenda. This post was to cite examples of problems of the criticism of my posts, and yes applies to the posts in this thread also.

The B-Theory of time is very relevant and an intimate part of modern science as discussed in this thread.

[MaxVel]

MaxVel, those that object to me basically come from a Christian perspective

Yeah, because you always argue against Christianity, and very often against theism

that rejects or only selectively accepts science to suit their world view. They also support old out dated arguments, which are highly circular, for God.

Again with the 'circular' stuff, which I've asked you to support and you can't, twice now. 'old out dated' sounds very like a fallacious appeal to age. See why people are tempted to question your coherence and competence?

Criticism of my posts usually amounts to Trollish ridicule. mindless smilly faces, and ridicule.

Rubbish. You get that, but you also get your share of thoughtful, measured responses too. And you indulge freely in your own forms of ridicule - 'the three Stooges, Bob Weave and Duck' and 'Airball' are your catchphrases.

[shunyadragon]

Yeah, because you always argue against Christianity, and very often against theism. None of my arguments have been against Theism. I argue agains bad archaic bad arguments for theism, and the fact that many theists like you and seer either do not accept science or selectively accept only that science that justifies you worldview.

Again with the 'circular' stuff, which I've asked you to support and you can't, twice now. 'old out dated' sounds very like a fallacious appeal to age. See why people are tempted to question your coherence and competence?

Ancient and archaic arguments only fail, because they do not take into consideration modern science and philosophy, and not because they are simply old.

The circular arguments for the existence of God have been responded to you by myself and others. You and other theists are the ones that have not been able to support these ancient circular arguments that need various assumptions in the beginning that support the existence of God that are equivalent to the conclusions,

[MaxVel]

Ancient and archaic arguments only fail, because they do not take into consideration modern science and philosophy, and not because they are simply old.

The circular arguments for the existence of God have been responded to you by myself and others. You and other theists are the ones that have not been able to support these ancient circular arguments that need various assumptions in the beginning that support the existence of God that are equivalent to the conclusions,

You've twice now claimed that Aquinas' arguments are circular, and have yet to show that they are. See the Philosophy forum. Your last post there doesn't show any circular arguments by Aquinas. It's just a list of common objections to Aquinas' arguments, many of which have been responded to by current Thomistic philosophers - see for example, the work of Edward Feser. I could find no mention there of the arguments being circular. Please cite that post and specifically underline or bold where it shows your claim to be correct.

[seer]

Ancient and archaic arguments only fail, because they do not take into consideration modern science and philosophy, and not because they are simply old.

Really, here is an argument from contingency from your Religion, you agree of course:

"Because a characteristic of contingent beings is dependency, and this dependency is an essential necessity, therefore, there must be
Now, when you behold in existence such organizations, arrangements and laws, can you say that all these are the effect of Nature, though Nature has neither intelligence nor perception? If not, it becomes evident that this Nature, which has neither perception nor intelligence, is in the grasp of Almighty God, Who is the Ruler of the world of Nature; whatever He wishes, He causes Nature to manifest.

[ShrimpMaster]

It's not ad hoc, since universal sanction cannot apply to organisms that don't have beliefs. What you're doing is ridiculous as saying that your account of "functional wings" is ad hoc, since your account does not apply to humans. That statement is ridiculous since humans don't have wings, so it makes no sense to apply the account to them. Similarly so here: you've given no reason to think that fish have beliefs. So it makes no sense to apply universal sanction to fish; since universal sanction applies to classes of beliefs. It therefore makes no sense for you to object to universal sanction by saying that universal sanction does not apply to fish.

I just thought it would be interesting to discuss with someone who maintains universal sanction + naturalism + evolution. Evolution would be the process that has produced both humans and frogs and yet you claim beliefs are necessary to regulate normal living conditions under universal sanction while for frogs it is not. Why not be skeptic about all of our beliefs? Why have beliefs at all? . It seems to me if you maintain that set of beliefs then you have another incoherence in your noetic system.

Plantinga wouldn't dare say that atheists are cognitively-handicapped. Please don't place your own personal prejudice against atheists into Plantinga's mouth. He's much too good of a philosopher for that, and I have too much respect for him to let you get away with that without comment.

He doesn't use the same vocabulary, but he does. Please read the chapter on sin and its noetic consequences. While he does not use the same vocabulary (cognitively handicapped, hehe) he does say that sin has negative noetic consequences. This applies to all of humanity though. I was having fun at the expense of atheism. My apologies.

Second, Plantinga does not aim to show that atheism is irrational. After all, he's fully aware of some of the arguments one can use to arrive rationally at atheism. And Plantinga thinks the bar for rationality is rather low, such that quite a number of ridiculous positions can be counted as rational. So it'd be no surprise for Plantinga if atheism could be arrived at rationally. Wunder notes as much:

Right, I meant to say warranted.

You missed my point there. You're claiming that Plantinga's position shows that one cannot make a de jure objection to Christianity without making a de facto objection to Christianity. My point was that your claim was false, since Christianity is not committed to something like the extended A/C model and thus Plantinga would not be able to claim that one is committed to a de facto objection to Christianity when one rejects the extended A/C model.

When you calculate the probability of "X", you almost always do go given some background information Y. For example, if I say:
the probability that my coin flip comes up heads; given that this is a fair coin with two sides, where one side is heads and the other is tails, and...
then "my coin flip comes up heads" is X, and "given that that this is..." is the Y on which that X is calculated.

Given this, if you wanted to determine the probability that a belief of mine is true, then you'll need to specify the background information relevant for that probability; that is: you'll need to tell me Y. Of course, Y will need to include the evidence for my belief, if there is any, since that evidence is relevant to how likely it is that my belief is true. For example, if my belief is that "monkeys exist", then Y will include my evidence for the existence of monkeys. Given this, Y will be different for different beliefs, since different beliefs often have different evidence in support of them. Yet you seem to be overlooking this point. You instead, seem to think that you can do determine the probability that my beliefs are true, simply by looking at evolution, without bothering to include the evidence in support of my beliefs; that is: you act as if Y only includes evolution. And that makes no sense.

This is false. You are accepting your beliefs as true prima facie and then smuggling evolution + naturalism in as the explanation. This is circular reasoning. The evaluation should be: what is the probability my beliefs are true given naturalism and evolution are true? FYI, this calculation would be based on the probability of evolution producing true beliefs given naturalism. Plantinga demonstrates that this probability is very low.

Once again, thanks for your time and I really enjoyed talking about Plantinga's epistemology with you. I will be sure to read and discuss the articles you posted when I have some time. Thanks.

[Jichard]

JRichard, here are four reasons to reject universal sanction that we still do not have clarity on:
1) Universal sanction is self-referentially incoherent, because the belief in universal sanction is not itself universally sanctioned

Addressed this already:

"For example, if you don't accept that universally sanctioned beliefs are properly basic (i.e. you don't accept that members of the class of pragmatically indispensable beliefs are appropriate starting points for reasoning, in the absence of strong defeators for those beliefs), then you're going to have massive trouble getting starting points for reasoning in your everyday life.

[...]

There's evidence that universally sanctioned beliefs are properly basic. For example, one piece of particularist evidence is that universal sanction explains cases of belief that seem (primae facie) to be properly basic, such as memory beliefs."

And belief in universal sanction does not need to be properly basic, in order for one to avoid the charge of self-referential incoherennc. It suffices for belief in universal sanction to be inferable from properly basic beliefs. And it clearly is. It's inferable from (primae facie) examples of properly basic beliefs, combined with a methodology where one infers a sufficient condition for proper basicality by examining what these examples of properly basic belief have in common. This methodology is itself apart of a universally sanctioned class of beliefs, since this sort of methodology is pragmatically indispensable for us in terms of figuring out sufficient for the instantiation of properties, the likelihood of a given occurrence, and other such things for which we need conditions.

2) I have shown that the criteria for the pragmatic skepticism condition is arbitrary

You didn't show that. What you did was make the trivial point that people define words. That doesn't shows any arbitrariness, unless you do what you are currently doing: make a use/mention mistake by confusing people defining a term with people defining the existence of the term's referent

No, we actually know what it is pretty clearly. I told you what it was:

"According to, for example, modern psychology.

Anyway, you're again using you "according to who" question, even though that's irrelevant. The issue here isn't who makes the claim; the issue here is whether the claim is true/false, unjustified/justified, etc.. And given that, my claim is pretty well justified: atheists can get on pretty fine in their lives. That's one reason, for example why atheism is not classified as a mental disorder. That's in contrast to, for example, someone who thinks they are dead or someone who thinks that they cannot die no matter what they do (Cotard Delusion). A person with that delusion is going to have massive problems getting on in life.

[...]

Because I'm able to get along in life just fine. I have productive relationships, can perform normal tasks like feeding myself and attending classes, I can interact with the outside world to perform my goals, I can reason about stuff using the evidence available to me, etc."

I'll explain it even more in a bit.

For instance, you cited modern psychology as the resource for the pragmatic skepticism condition. Not a good criteria if we are evaluating universal sanction as superior to reformed epistemology.

As I said above, the source of the criteria (that is: where it comes from) is irrelevant. Instead, what is relevant is whether the criteria is accurate, justified, etc. in reference to a distinction/property/similarity/difference that actually exists. And I clearly showed you that was the case.

The problem is that you're not distinguishing between the source of a claim and the accuracy of the claim. Hence you mistakenly thinking that a claim cannot be relevant to epistemology, simply because the claim comes from the science of psychology.

First, you just claimed that "non-believers [...] do not have a meaningful or fulfilling life". This is a ridiculous claim. There are plenty of things in my life (and the life of other believers) that make our lives meaningful and fulfilling. It's not my fault if you find none of the following meaningful and fulfilling, even though they are apart of the lives of many atheists:

• relationships with other people
• benefiting the welfare of sentient life
• pursuing scientific research
• contributing to the body of human knowledge
• raising a human child or a sentient pet (ex: a dog)
• learning about oneself
• accomplishing one's goals
• making a loved one happy

and so on.

Second, you made a false claim when you said that Christians beliefs are universally sanctioned, since as I explained above, atheists can get along just fine without religious belief. You seem to think that you can rebut that point by claiming that atheists don't live meaningful or fulfilling lives. But your response there shows that you still have an incorrect idea of what universal sanction is. Universal sanction is not about how fulfilling one's life is. It's about pragmatic indispensability. If one has thorough-going skepticism about such a pragmatically indispensable class/type/kind of beliefs, then one wouldn't even be able to function in daily life. Tyler Wunder made that pretty clear:

""

I gave you some other examples:

"atheists can get on pretty fine in their lives. That's one reason, for example why atheism is not classified as a mental disorder. That's in contrast to, for example, someone who thinks they are dead or someone who thinks that they cannot die no matter what they do (Cotard Delusion). A person with that delusion is going to have massive problems getting on in life."

Here's another example: the class of perceptual beliefs. For example, one's perceptual belief that one is perceiving a tree that's there. If you had a thorough-going, serious doubt about the entire class of perceptual beliefs, then you wouldn't even be able to move around, since you would not trust the perceptual beliefs you needed in order to know where, and how, to move. Your deficit would be so great that you'd likely be diagnosed with some sort of psychological problem. Atheism is not anything like that. Atheism is not some psychological disorder where one literally isn't able to function in daily-life. So lacking the class of theistic beliefs (i.e. atheism), is not like seriously doubting the class of perceptual beliefs, or seriously doubting the class of memory beliefs, or... You're therefore incorrect when you claim that Christians beliefs are pragmatically indispensable.

I already explained to you the problem with you OP's de jure point: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...341#post230341

Universal sanction is not a criterion of justification. It's a criterion of proper basicality. And I already explained how this relates to Plantinga's position:

"You're still missing the point: Plantinga's defense depends on their being no plausible criterion of proper basicality, such that that criterion excludes theistic belief. He needs that in order to get his conclusion that theistic belief can be properly basic."

I just thought it would be interesting to discuss with someone who maintains universal sanction + naturalism + evolution. Evolution would be the process that has produced both humans and frogs and yet you claim beliefs are necessary to regulate normal living conditions under universal sanction while for frogs it is not.Why not be skeptic about all of our beliefs?

You've yet to show that evolution gives me any reason to be skeptical about my beliefs. The fact that I have beliefs influenced by evolution and frogs don't have beliefs, gives me no more reason to be skeptical of my beliefs, than the fact that birds have wings influence by evolution and I don't have wings, gives me reason to think a bird's wings don't work.

Why have beliefs at all?

Because the beliefs help causally regulate behavior, amongst other things. Human beliefs can causally regulate human behavior, even if frogs lack beliefs that causally regulate frog behavior. I explained this before I discussed this before:

"The frog's behavior may be regulated without beliefs. After all, different organisms regulate their behavior in different ways. So just as a frog might regulate it's behavior using a nervous system that lacks beliefs, a bacteria might regulate it's behavior without a nervous system and a human might regulate it's behavior using a nervous system that has causally-efficacious beliefs."

. It seems to me if you maintain that set of beliefs then you have another incoherence in your noetic system.

I see no incoherence.

He doesn't use the same vocabulary, but he does. Please read the chapter on sin and its noetic consequences. While he does not use the same vocabulary (cognitively handicapped, hehe) he does say that sin has negative noetic consequences. This applies to all of humanity though. I was having fun at the expense of atheism. My apologies.

This doesn't get you to the conclusion that you wanted: that the extended A/C implies that Christian beliefs are universally sanctioned. I explained why above.

M-Christianity does entail AC-Christianity. I would not suggest that knowledge of AC-Christianity is required for salvation. I think that is you not understanding the doctrine of salvation.

You didn't address my argument against that.

And I really don't want to debate evolution with a Christian who thinks that evolution and philosophy of biology have not progressed since Darwin wrote Origin. Yet here am I doing that. So I don't sympathize much with your above complaint.

This is false. You are accepting your beliefs as true prima facie and then smuggling evolution + naturalism in as the explanation. This is circular reasoning.

No, I'm explaining to you why different beliefs of mine have a different probabilities of being true: because they depend on different relevant background information.

The evaluation should be: what is the probability my beliefs are true given naturalism and evolution are true? FYI, this calculation would be based on the probability of evolution producing true beliefs given naturalism. Plantinga demonstrates that this probability is very low.

First, Plantinga never demonstrated that that probability was low.

Second, I already explained how evolution selects for true beliefs, how true beliefs are more likely to make it through iterative rounds of selection, and how evolution can select for reliable cognition that produces a particular belief B (even if evolution does not directly select for B). I even gave you a paper on that. So there's no need to think this hasn't been explained:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...327#post231327
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...265#post232265

Once again, thanks for your time and I really enjoyed talking about Plantinga's epistemology with you. I will be sure to read and discuss the articles you posted when I have some time. Thanks.

You're welcome. And thanks.

[shunyadragon]

Really, here is an argument from contingency from your Religion, you agree of course:

"Because a characteristic of contingent beings is dependency, and this dependency is an essential necessity, therefore, there must be

As below I consider this a statement of belief and not a complete logical proof that God exists.

Or the argument from Design


Now, when you behold in existence such organizations, arrangements and laws, can you say that all these are the effect of Nature, though Nature has neither intelligence nor perception? If not, it becomes evident that this Nature, which has neither perception nor intelligence, is in the grasp of Almighty God, Who is the Ruler of the world of Nature; whatever He wishes, He causes Nature to manifest.

I believe this is a statement of belief and not an argument for the existence of God. Abdul'baha's belief statement is 'it becomes evident,' I also believe it so but there is not no logical proof that this is so I also believe Nature has neither perception nor intelligence, but I do not consider this a logical proof that God exists. The belief that nature has perception and intelligence would be the Gaia belief, which also has no logical proof that the Gaia model is true.