 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/25/2005 6:12 PM (GMT -6) |   | Questions for Corey:
1) If I am a 16 year old boy, born and raised in Saudi Arabia, under a household of devout Muslims,
Is the belief that Allah created me a properly basic belief?
----------------
2) If I am a 15 year old girl, born and raised in India, under a household of devout Hindus,
Is the belief that Brahman exists a properly basic belief?
------------------
3) What are some properly basic religious beliefs that you hold?
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 10/25/2005 9:29 PM (GMT -6) | | |
First off, thanks for engaging in this with me. I'm sure it will knock off some of the rough edges and refine my thinking.
The thing about Properly Basic Beliefs that I find frustrating (and at the same time releasing) is that it really only works for the single individual. That is, it seems to be mostly an defensive stance. I know this is likely to bug you, but it probably is a variant of the mystery card (from an outside perpective).
I've never been a 16-year-old Muslim boy. I've never been a 15-year-old Hindu girl. I don't know to what extent these people have had an encounter with ultimate reality. Other people's inner worlds are opaque to me. But for me, the individual called Corey, it is not properly basic to believe anything about Brahman or Allah since I myself have not encountered them. For all I know, they don't exist.
But I have encountered God. Now that I have, I cannot deny that he exists. I cannot deny that I am loved by him. I cannot deny that he is the Truth and that he holds all I need or desire. I just simply know that, no argument needed here. Furthermore, as I read scripture I just simply know that in and through it God purposes to reveal himself further to me, and to share the story of what he's been up to in the world. These are a few of the properly basic beliefs that I can form into propositional statements. But there's a deeper music that I know, and can't convey.
The specifics of that story, of course, require some thinking. I engage in this thinking ("theologizing" you call it) because in love I'm seeking to better know the One who first loved me. Faith seeking understanding. Post Edited (Corey) : 10/25/2005 10:15:41 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/26/2005 6:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
The thing about Properly Basic Beliefs that I find frustrating (and at the same time releasing) is that it really only works for the single individual. That is, it seems to be mostly an defensive stance. I know this is likely to bug you, but it probably is a variant of the mystery card (from an outside perpective).
Hmmm...I thought that I was noticing that. Especially when I was reading one of Plantinga's interviews. It's kind of a way to show how a person can be rational in believing in their own personal experience. Just because a person cannot prove their experience to another doesn't mean that the experiencer is not rational in believing what they do. I could see how this could validate one's appropriation of the subjective "truth" of the claim. Of course, none of this does anything to talk about the objective reality of the belief.
****************************
Corey:
I've never been a 16-year-old Muslim boy. I've never been a 15-year-old Hindu girl. I don't know to what extent these people have had an encounter with ultimate reality. Other people's inner worlds are opaque to me. But for me, the individual called Corey, it is not properly basic to believe anything about Brahman or Allah since I myself have not encountered them. For all I know, they don't exist.
Right. They would probably say the same thing about the Judeo-Christian God, had they never had exposure to it.
Here was my thought. It seems to me that "basic religious beliefs" ALWAYS have a forming context such that beliefs are involved. In other words, Plantinga has a Christian worldview context from whence he interprets everything else. The only way that the statement "God created this flower" could be properly basic is for there to be a worldview context in which the statement is made. If one's cultural context believed in an impersonal God or no gods, then the sentence would not be properly basic, right?
Again, this seems to end up being a way of saying that personal religious experience (and beliefs that emerge from it) cannot just be dismissed as irrational. For the purposes of religious belief and activity, they don't HAVE to be justified. Just like the prophet doesn't necessarily try to prove their experience with the Divine, but merely proclaim what they've seen and heard.
One thing that HAS to be noted from what I see, though, is that this could work for ANY major religious belief. It seems patently obvious to me that Muslims, Hindus, and others could use the same type of reasoning. What do you think?
*****************************
Corey:
But I have encountered God. Now that I have, I cannot deny that he exists. I cannot deny that I am loved by him. I cannot deny that he is the Truth and that he holds all I need or desire. I just simply know that, no argument needed here. Furthermore, as I read scripture I just simply know that in and through it God purposes to reveal himself further to me, and to share the story of what he's been up to in the world. These are a few of the properly basic beliefs that I can form into propositional statements. But there's a deeper music that I know, and can't convey.
Thanks for sharing this. Some things. Could there ever be ANYTHING that would cause you to have doubts about any of the things that you've mentioned here? I understand that the basic beliefs are such that they are in some way incorrigible or self-evident (or something to that effect). What I'm wondering is this: If basic beliefs are the way I'm hearing them...and people of other religions really CAN have basic beliefs of their own and stick to them...it would seem like attempts at conversion could NEVER really use apologetics. They would just wash of the non-Christian religious person like water off a duck's back. All they could do it provide THEIR basic beliefs and (from their worldview perspective) pray that the Spirit works through it.
Just like the Islamic person who would truly want to bring you to the truth of Islam could never provide you with apologetic tidbits about the divine nature of the Quran or anything like that. The most they could do is hope that Allah would shine his "divine light" on you such that you would see Jesus as the Issa and NOT as the 3rd person of the Trinity!
I suppose what I'm feeling here is this: the idea of basic beliefs is great existentially speaking. I don't know what would help someone live an "one-willed thing" religious life better than this. But I'm not sure sure that the idea of basic beliefs helps us in all areas. For example, many people would have the basic belief that "rocks are solid" whereas we know, on the sub atomic level, that there is LOTS of space between that which makes up the rock. Though the person's basic belief would help them live ordinary life pretty well, it would not get them closer to the ACTUALITY of the situation in some dimensions. Could the same be said for basic religious belief?
See what I'm saying?
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/26/2005 9:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
As a cursory response, let me point out that Plantinga also makes heavy use of the notion of "proper function". I can trust my basic beliefs if I am not suffering from some sort of dysfunction (and other disclaimers such as being in a proper environment aimed at truth, etc.) So if it could be shown that I am somehow dysfunctional in my mental faculties or that I'm in an environment designed to deceive (like the Matrix) then I would have cause to doubt my basic beliefs, as they wouldn't be proper.
Truth be told, I do think I suffer to some extent from both of these conditions, as we all do. If there were no dysfunction in us and the world, we'd all see God plainly as he is. Theologically, it's the problem of sin.
But my basic beliefs are not something I would ever be argued out of. Like Neo, I can't be told what the Matrix is, I have to be shown.
If this is the case, then the only thing that could happen is one of two things...
1) to CHOOSE to venture outside of one's worldview to experience another way of life
or
2) to be FORCED to venture outside of one's worldview to experience another way of life
For many people who are more evidentialistic or coherentist, #2 is what happens to them. (I'm thinking about deconversions and such.) For people who do the more Reformed epistemology thing, it could ONLY be #1.
Actually, I think that the Matrix is a VERY good way of describing things. If a person in the Matrix were to assume a Reformed epistemological perspective, they would never even TRY to venture out beyond their current worldview, would they? Why? They are perfectly within their epistemological bounds NOT to do so and enjoy the truth they have. I think that the scriptwriters described things very well. Neo had inclinations that things MIGHT have been different (ie the "splinter in the mind" ) but ultimately, he had to to make the CHOICE to take the red pill. In like manner, a Reformed epistemologist would have to willingly "take a leap" and DOUBT the foundational "basic beliefs" they have and assume those of another worldview. And after living in that for a while, see what happens.
Hmmm. What would life be like if I were to be a deist? What would my basic beliefs be then?
But what kind of thing would have to occur for THAT to happen? Again, it couldn't be evidence or even testimony by itself. It would have to be a willed, conscious choice of the Reformed epistemologist to do it. But if that person is happy, contented, and existentially satisfied with their basic beliefs...and their are rationally justified in holding them with bowing down to skeptics...then WHY would they?
Hence, from my perspective, the whole enterprise closes IN on itself. A Christian with a Reformed epistemological perspective would NEVER leave the Christian worldview because she would be interpreting all things from that worldview...and would have absolutely no reason to step outside of that worldview.
Unforturnately, this same epistemological take can occur for any religious worldview
This raises huge flags for me. (I'm a strong coherence and correspondence person!)
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 10/26/2005 10:45 AM (GMT -6) | |
I could see how this could validate one's appropriation of the subjective "truth" of the claim. Of course, none of this does anything to talk about the objective reality of the belief.
I contend that it goes beyond subjective appropriation of "truth". I simply know that I've tasted the ultimate objective reality, as far as my encounter with God is concerned. It may not be "objective" in the sense that any disinterested outside observer could verify it, but that's not the criteria I'm concerned about.
So what do you have in mind when you say "objective reality"? How would you go about knowing this objective reality? Post Edited (Corey) : 10/26/2005 10:48:12 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/26/2005 11:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
Quickly, I think we're not using the term "basic" in the same way. When I say basic, I'm talking about the very bottom tier (the ones for which no argument is required). I think you may be the term "basic beliefs" here to desribe things that I would categorize as higher-order beliefs (things that DO require reasoning.)
Even propositions like "God made this flower" would be higher-order beliefs on my view.
I think on the contrary to the concerns that you've raised, I'm actually more inclined than most to reconsider my beliefs, as I recognize that most of my beliefs are higher-order.
Hmmmm...you're right.
I was going more by Plantinga's representations of "basic belief" then yours. But I think some things still apply. Your specific basic beliefs are:
--God exists.
--God loves you.
--God is ultimate Truth
--God is the fulfillment of all need and/or desire
--God reveals Godself through Judeo-Christian holy writings. (scripture)
So, your "basic" worldview would consist of a personal God who lovingly relates to people and reveals Godself to others in the forms of historical acts and human religious literature.
This would be accurate, yes?
So, how would you ever be willing to consider deism as a worldview? Or how would you ever be willing to consider a pantheistic worldview? Panentheistic?
Would you ever consider the power of the human brain in "experiencing" things to produce feelings and thoughts that are grounded on inner "reality" more than external? Would you ever consider your experiencing external reality, but from a limited perspective? (ie what you interpret as love is something else entirely, but the closest thing you can identify with the sense is "love" )
Wouldn't the only way you could do so would be to make a CHOICE to question the nature of some of your experiences and place yourself in an different worldview? And again, why would you do that, if where you are is rationally justifiable and without dissonance?
****************************
Corey:
So what do you have in mind when you say "objective reality"? How would you go about knowing this objective reality?
I suppose I mean ACTUALITY. What is actually the case. I think that it's safe to say that we can NEVER have a total objective perspective on anything, including actuality. What we can do, I believe, is dialogue, compare, and contrast experiences and beliefs, on our way towards groping towards a clearly representation of ultimate reality.
I keep thinking of the 3 blind men who were "interpreting" the elephant.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 10/26/2005 11:41 AM (GMT -6) | |
So, your "basic" worldview would consist of a personal God who lovingly relates to people and reveals Godself to others in the forms of historical acts and human religious literature.
This would be accurate, yes? To be clear, I want a stronger distinction between "worldview" and "properly basic beliefs". One of my basic (argument not required) beliefs is that God is personal, because I have directly experienced this personal God. I know that he interacts with us. When I read the Christian scripture, I recognize the music that these people are dancing to. I hear God calling me deeper to learn from the great cloud of witnesses.
We're reading through SK's Either/Or right now. It opens with a long description of music. The music of God itself is the pure, properly basic experience that I know. How I go about trying to articulate that, capturing and translating it to words and propositional beliefs is another matter. This translation necessarily is not the same as the music itself. SK here seems to be making the point, "how to ruin a good opera".
So yes, God has revealed himself throughout history. But I don't look primarily to history to know what God is LIKE. I only have to look as far as the present. This is not to diminish the importance of history, but just is to say that my Christian belief has a basis that is more sure, for me as a single individual. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 10/26/2005 12:14 PM (GMT -6) | |
So, how would you ever be willing to consider deism as a worldview? Or how would you ever be willing to consider a pantheistic worldview? Panentheistic?
Would you ever consider the power of the human brain in "experiencing" things to produce feelings and thoughts that are grounded on inner "reality" more than external? Would you ever consider your experiencing external reality, but from a limited perspective? (ie what you interpret as love is something else entirely, but the closest thing you can identify with the sense is "love" )
Wouldn't the only way you could do so would be to make a CHOICE to question the nature of some of your experiences and place yourself in an different worldview? And again, why would you do that, if where you are is rationally justifiable and without dissonance? For now, I'll use "worldview" as the higher-order system of beliefs that we construct (subconciously or consciously) to account for our experience of reality.
For me, Corey, the single individual who has experienced God in a personal and direct way, any worldview I adopt must deal adequately those experiences. So for me, deism, pantheism, panentheism are not viable. Not because I can't/won't consider them, but because when I do I find them inadequate and unsatisfying for the "splinter" problem.
I think it is no more difficult for me to model another worldview than for anyone else. We all have certain data points, to use a science metaphor, that any theory must account for. I just may have access to different data points than others do.
As for the possibility of my misunderstanding or being deceived about my experience of "love", yes, it's possible. But it would not be reasonable for me to doubt this any more than it would be reasonable for me to doubt that I'm sitting in a chair right now. Post Edited (Corey) : 10/26/2005 12:26:00 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/26/2005 1:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
You said earlier, "I'm a strong coherence and correspondence person"... what part of what I'm saying do you see as incoherent or non-corresponding?
VERY quickly.
This wasn't a slam. I was just saying that I'm NOT a foundationalist.
Do a Google on the coherence and correpondence theories of truth.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 10/26/2005 2:57 PM (GMT -6) | |
This wasn't a slam. I was just saying that I'm NOT a foundationalist.
Do a Google on the coherence and correpondence theories of truth. Didn't take it as a slam. Just thought you saw something in my position that doesn't add up. I want that feedback.
When you say you are not a foundationalist, I assume you mean you are not a classical foundationalist (ala the rationalists). Plantinga rejects that as well.
BTW, I am fairly familiar with the various truth theories... going way back to some philosophy classes I took in my college days. Also, I've read Plantinga's survey and critique of the various theories in Warrant: the Current Debate. Post Edited (Corey) : 10/26/2005 4:04:35 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/26/2005 5:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph, this discussion is really interesting. Couple of questions I have are:
Per my understanding, foundationalists hold to the need for correspondence and coherence. So what, exactly, is the precise definition of foundationalism? Does it mean there are fundamental propositions? Or what?
For example, to me, time, space, and causality seem to be fundamental notions. But I don't think we get those notions because of some set of original propositions in the mind, necessarily.
Also, can you recommend a good book on process epistemology?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/27/2005 1:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Some things...
1) On the basic beliefs vs "worldview"
What I'm understanding "basic beliefs" to be are those beliefs that are self-authenticated by experience. Non-inferential stuff, right? Now it seemed to me that, by taking these beliefs (how ever many there are) and placing them together, you begin to form a web of beliefs that I just colloquially referred to as a "worldview". Example.
What I thought that had done with this...
So, your "basic" worldview would consist of a personal God who lovingly relates to people and reveals Godself to others in the forms of historical acts and human religious literature.
...was synthesize some of your basic beliefs into a perspective of sorts. I don't see why this would be a problem...unless what we are supposed to do is just examine basic beliefs atomistically. If that what need to happen, cool.
Maybe here's the question. Can one form a RUDIMENTARY "worldview" from a collection of basic beliefs?
2) about Reformed epistemology.
One of the things I'm noticing is that the idea of a creator, designer, communicator God seems to be highly presupposed by Plantinga. It's one thing to presuppose a longing for transcendence or unity inherent in sentient beings, or something like that. But RE seems largely grounded in religous experience that already ASSUMES a significant amount about the existence and nature of divine reality.
I think this is why I said I don't see how the Reformed epistemologist could ever leave theistic faith. The very bedrock of the evaluation of the perception apparatus is has the belief of God inherently involved. Even the way things are worded:
A belief has warrant for one iff said belief is produced by one’s properly functioning cognitive faculties in circumstances where those faculties are designed to apply; plus, those faculties must be designed for the purpose of producing true beliefs.
Designed??
If anyone were to suggest that the "sensus divinitatus" were a type of "side effect" of sentience, just like a true sense of temporality, such that we longed for transcendence, a sense of unity, and wonder...but had NO correlation to a God, what would be said. Better yet, what if someone were to suggest that the "sensus divinatatus" was a beacon of sorts to divine reality, but that divine reality were truly some form of deistic, pantheistic, or panentheistic divinity...then what would be said?
The idea of relationality (shown in "love" and sin (shown in divine displeasure in sin [one of Plantinga's basic beliefs] assume a THEISTIC worldview.
*****************************
This is what I'm understanding: For those who take the modest foundationalism route, it's good to go with your senses and rational processes via basic beliefs, build upon those, get supporting evidence...but always be open to conflicting data.
What I'm trying to understand is what that could possibly look like for a Reformed epistemologist to NOT be a theist anymore. Barring the existence of some obvious, diagnosable psychological malady or some Truman Show/Matrix-esque type deception, what could possible cause a RE consider that their INTERPRETATION of their body of religious experience may be significantly different than what is actually the case. Modest foundationalists, as I understand it, admit the fallibility of perception such that, even though belief may be justified, it DOESN'T necessarily mean it's true.
Would their have to be OTHER religious experiences involved? For example, if I were to get you to read the Bhagavad Gita, and you were to experience an overwhelming "heart-warming" experience of whateverness, what would that mean? What if an overwhelming feeling of oneness came over you when you visited a synagogue hearing the Torah being read? I'm trying to get my mind around what would get an RE to 1)question their religious experience and 2)question the INTERPRETATION of their religious experience.
The music of God idea. Ok. The music's playing, but no one seems to hear it but you. Correction. MANY other people are testifying to hearing it. But is it MUSIC? Or is it just harmonious/cacophonous sounds that form something like unto music? Like how windchimes blowing in the wind can sometimes sound like a purposeful tune, at times. Even if it IS music being consciously played, is it being played for YOU or anyone else listening in mind? Is it intended for you alone? You read some testimonies and "recognize the music that they are dancing to" If you were to read some testimonies from different sources, would you "recognize the tune" there too? How do you know if you've not tried?
It just seems like when certain questions are posed to religious experience, things seem, to me, to get really interesting. But would RE even allow that type of skepticism towards one's religious experience. You said:
As for the possibility of my misunderstanding or being deceived about my experience of "love", yes, it's possible. But it would not be reasonable for me to doubt this any more than it would be reasonable for me to doubt that I'm sitting in a chair right now.
I noticed your language here. "...being deceived..." That's not where I was going with that. I meant...what if there was a transcendental experience you were having that went BEYOND your current emotional categories such that "love" was the closest thing that you could relate it to? Instead of saying "I have an immense experience of oneness, closeness, and intimacy with what is Real" or something like that...you say "I believe that I'm loved by him." The experience is not being denied. The INTERPRETATION of the experience is being questioned.
Well, enough rambling.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/27/2005 1:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
Per my understanding, foundationalists hold to the need for correspondence and coherence. So what, exactly, is the precise definition of foundationalism? Does it mean there are fundamental propositions? Or what?
For example, to me, time, space, and causality seem to be fundamental notions. But I don't think we get those notions because of some set of original propositions in the mind, necessarily.
Also, can you recommend a good book on process epistemology?
1) There is no epistemology that is unique to process philosophy. But a good book on epistemology that I remember scanning at a bookstore was "Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge" by Robert Audi. www.amazon.com/gp/product/0415130433/002-0560296-9920022?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance
It's a big book, but it had some really good stuff. I've just been too cheap to get it!
2) For foundationalism:
Foundationalist Theories of Epistemic Justification
plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-foundational/
Corey was right. I was going against the classical and modern views rather than the "modest foundationalism"
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/27/2005 6:18 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 10/27/2005 7:40 AM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
1) On the basic beliefs vs "worldview"
What I'm understanding "basic beliefs" to be are those beliefs that are self-authenticated by experience. Non-inferential stuff, right? Now it seemed to me that, by taking these beliefs (how ever many there are) and placing them together, you begin to form a web of beliefs that I just colloquially referred to as a "worldview". Example.
What I thought that had done with this...
So, your "basic" worldview would consist of a personal God who lovingly relates to people and reveals Godself to others in the forms of historical acts and human religious literature.
...was synthesize some of your basic beliefs into a perspective of sorts. I don't see why this would be a problem...unless what we are supposed to do is just examine basic beliefs atomistically. If that what need to happen, cool.
Maybe here's the question. Can one form a RUDIMENTARY "worldview" from a collection of basic beliefs? Too bad we jump into this stuff at the beginning of the work day..!
The main reason I wanted to seperate the discussion was to avoid confusing the categories, as I thought I saw happening. Yes, the description you gave of my rudimentary worldview is accurate, but I would point out that all I really know in a properly basic way in your synopsis is that God relates personally to me (I can't know if others have this experience) and that I hear God calling in a direct way as I read the Christian scripture.
So, yes, a rudimentary worldview can/will quickly be formed, but we're not there yet. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 10/27/2005 8:01 AM (GMT -6) | |
2) about Reformed epistemology.One of the things I'm noticing is that the idea of a creator, designer, communicator God seems to be highly presupposed by Plantinga. It's one thing to presuppose a longing for transcendence or unity inherent in sentient beings, or something like that. But RE seems largely grounded in religous experience that already ASSUMES a significant amount about the existence and nature of divine reality. I think this is why I said I don't see how the Reformed epistemologist could ever leave theistic faith. The very bedrock of the evaluation of the perception apparatus is has the belief of God inherently involved. Even the way things are worded: A belief has warrant for one iff said belief is produced by one’s properly functioning cognitive faculties in circumstances where those faculties are designed to apply; plus, those faculties must be designed for the purpose of producing true beliefs.Designed?? If anyone were to suggest that the "sensus divinitatus" were a type of "side effect" of sentience, just like a true sense of temporality, such that we longed for transcendence, a sense of unity, and wonder...but had NO correlation to a God, what would be said. Better yet, what if someone were to suggest that the "sensus divinatatus" was a beacon of sorts to divine reality, but that divine reality were truly some form of deistic, pantheistic, or panentheistic divinity...then what would be said? The idea of relationality (shown in "love" and sin (shown in divine displeasure in sin [one of Plantinga's basic beliefs] assume a THEISTIC worldview. You're right to notice the intentionality of the language; it was not happenstance that he used the word "designed". Throughout his writings he repeatedly and deliberately thows in the disclaimer, "if true" in regards to theistic assumptions. I'll look up a statement or two when I get time to illustrate this.
I will readily admit that merely because I hold a belief in a properly basic way does not make it true. It merely makes it a warranted belief. These beliefs would be true if they correspond to reality. Remember, my claims here are about epistemology, not ontology.
Are you familiar with his work in Naturalism Defeated? My friend who did his PhD work under Plantinga says this is probably his most brilliant work. I heard Plantinga deliver a paper on this about a decade ago at the U of M. Basically (my summary), it says that Naturalism, if true, cannot produce warranted beliefs, especially higher-order ones such as the belief that Naturalism is true. Post Edited (Corey) : 10/27/2005 11:47:42 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/27/2005 1:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
Are you familiar with his work in Naturalism Defeated? My friend who did his PhD work under Plantinga says this is probably his most brilliant work. I heard Plantinga deliver a paper on this about a decade ago at the U of M. Basically (my summary), it says that Naturalism, if true, cannot produce warranted beliefs, especially higher-order ones such as the belief that Naturalism is true.
I've heard of the argument. Pretty solid, as I understand. Darwin's "monkey-mind" doubt or something like that.
Unless there is a solid link made between content of belief and efficacy of behavior, then naturalism's got problems.
However, if one wanted, one could be a deist, pantheist, or panentheist with ease...and operate under a practical atheism.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/27/2005 7:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph: Unless there is a solid link made between content of belief and efficacy of behavior, then naturalism's got problems.
However, if one wanted, one could be a deist, pantheist, or panentheist with ease...and operate under a practical atheism.
Jeff: I agree with your basic contention. But apart from the problem of evil, it is natural as breathing to extrapolate that same relation of "design," implied by an epistemological FIT to reality, to a FITTEDNESS of sensibilities to reality. I think that is what Paul means when he says that when people choose not to retain God (the designer) in their knowledge, He turns them over to a mind which does things not FITTING (according to design).
So, yes, I would say it is easy to "operate under a practical atheism." The question is, is that the most rational thing to do? If the problem of evil is intractable, there is reason to question the idea that there ever was an intended fittedness of sensibilities to reality. Otherwise, such an extrapolation seems warranted because it is a form of analogy and uniformity--a warranted extension of a principle to greater application.
Indeed, it may be categorically intuitive for humans to think about objective trENDS and tENDencies in terms of means and ENDs. The objective relation of adaptation may be correlative with the subjective relation of design, in that sense, just like finite and infinite are correlative. It's hard to explain, otherwise, the fact that even atheistic determinists can't seem to eliminate the language of final cause/design from their vocabulary.
I think Lewis argued for something like this. I suspect that's why he was obsessed with the problem of evil. And rightly so, IMO. For the problem of evil is, to my mind, precisely the problem of determining whether our sensibilities really are FITTED to objective reality in such a way that would account for a rational human morality and a personal creator/designer interested in morality/benevolence.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 10/28/2005 7:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Going back a bit...
MephEternal said...
I suppose what I'm feeling here is this: the idea of basic beliefs is great existentially speaking. I don't know what would help someone live an "one-willed thing" religious life better than this. But I'm not sure sure that the idea of basic beliefs helps us in all areas. For example, many people would have the basic belief that "rocks are solid" whereas we know, on the sub atomic level, that there is LOTS of space between that which makes up the rock. Though the person's basic belief would help them live ordinary life pretty well, it would not get them closer to the ACTUALITY of the situation in some dimensions. Could the same be said for basic religious belief?
See what I'm saying? I don't think there's a problem here for the modest foundationalist in regards to the solid rocks example. Investigations into the subatomic level don't negate one experience at the macro level, but just refine the understanding of how it all works. However, if some theory came along that posited that rocks don't have mass, one would be warranted to not adopt that belief. We can know about mass in a properly basic way, we can't know about quantum mechanics in a properly basic way. Different categories: we don't have faculties for directly perceiving quantum events.
Perhaps a better example in illustrating a problem with properly basic beliefs possibly conflicting with actuality is that of the Coepernican revolution. It appears directly to our senses that some planets exhibit retrograde motion. It appears directly to our senses that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. So we conclude that it's the sun that moves, not the earth.
This points out why I was wanting a distinction between worldview and properly basic beliefs. The sense perceptions about the sun and the planets are valid, and do not require argument to justify them. However, it's the next step that we need to be careful about, the step where we begin to draw inferences, the step where earlier people concluded that the sun goes around the earth. Just note that this was a conclusion, and not a properly basic belief in itself.
Note also that any candidate theory to replace the "worldview" of geocentricity must still account for the properly basic beliefs, the sense perceptions about retrograde motion and sunrises and sunsets. Post Edited (Corey) : 10/28/2005 7:39:31 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 26 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:54 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|