tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6376955256463224749.post6159045251834869834..comments2023-09-07T12:03:43.350-07:00Comments on Theological Sushi: Christianity Doesn't Require Omniscience from Its AdherentsB. C. Hodgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02828477115799852133noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6376955256463224749.post-83031557771065570602013-10-18T18:43:36.386-07:002013-10-18T18:43:36.386-07:00Let's not forget that Plantinga criticized Daw...Let's not forget that Plantinga criticized Dawkins for messing with philosophy without being an philosopher, only to have Plantinga then turn around and offer this argument that relies on the most ignorantly deformed versions of the most basic of biology in general, and of evolution in particular. Plantinga should have followed his own advice and not make that ridiculous display of ignorance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6376955256463224749.post-70754582064261858462013-10-18T10:20:46.811-07:002013-10-18T10:20:46.811-07:00Steve, of course, does not notice the contradictio...<b>Steve, of course, does not notice the contradictions within and without the doctrines. But this should not be a surprise.</b><br />It's my experience that it is assumed, without good reason, that there are no such contradictions, and so they're all simply rationalised away - after all, there must be some solution to them because the bible doesn't have contradictions!Rianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08021810579773953296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6376955256463224749.post-21375795990164857742013-10-17T20:33:09.254-07:002013-10-17T20:33:09.254-07:00It seems to me that reliable sense perception woul...<b>It seems to me that reliable sense perception would provide the individual with an survival advantage and an advantage in reproductive success. Hardly aimless.</b><br />I'm continually surprised that anyone takes the EAAN seriously.Rianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08021810579773953296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6376955256463224749.post-91784492178604086822013-10-17T19:22:14.875-07:002013-10-17T19:22:14.875-07:00Calvinists in particular don't believe in free...Calvinists in particular don't believe in free will. All is "God's" "plan" unfolding. Lots of creations going to hell is just part of the big "plan." Therefore nature doing its course would also be "God's" plan. Steve, of course, does not notice the contradictions within and without the doctrines. But this should not be a surprise.<br /><br />Calvinism also has several subdivisions, by the way, which means that many if not all of them would be worshiping an idol of their own making rather than "God," and since most of these versions of their god are deceivers, or just happy to leave you to be deceived (according to some Christian there's a "difference"), going to hell for worshiping an idol is something you would not know to be the case, but also part of the plan. Isn't Christianity (Christianities!) nice and logical?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6376955256463224749.post-60331552825271393052013-10-17T19:11:19.435-07:002013-10-17T19:11:19.435-07:00TU and D,
Close enough for your comment to start ...TU and D,<br /><br />Close enough for your comment to start looking like an intelligent one this time. Here. Another lollipop. Don't worry. I'm patient. If you keep trying maybe you will be able to have a conversation later. Be careful not to break your brain though. One step at a time will do for you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6376955256463224749.post-13157960391670991762013-10-17T09:56:24.660-07:002013-10-17T09:56:24.660-07:00"Although I thought your first comment suffic...<i>"Although I thought your first comment sufficiently illustrated the intellectual vacuity of the village atheist, it's nice to see that you have vacuity to spare."</i><br /><br />Chuckling heartily. Hence, the appropriate moniker of "PhotoStupidity" is attached to this intellectually vacuous village atheist. <br /><br />Or is it "Negative IQ"? LOL!Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6376955256463224749.post-80200332825753981472013-10-17T09:30:07.619-07:002013-10-17T09:30:07.619-07:00steve:
Many things happen by natural causes. God...steve: <br /><br /><b>Many things happen by natural causes. God doesn't do everything himself. He created personal agents and natural agencies that do many things. Are you just ignorant of basic Christian theology?</b> <br /><br />Christians believe in "natural agencies" that cause events independent of God? I thought that Christians believed that all the processes of nature are at His direction. My bad. <br /><br />So the difference between Naturalists and Christians is a matter of degree.NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6376955256463224749.post-17615259868594398082013-10-17T08:35:11.169-07:002013-10-17T08:35:11.169-07:00steve:
iii) The same belief can sometimes have b...steve: <br /><br /><b>iii) The same belief can sometimes have both supporting evidence and prima facie counterevidence. For instance, that's commonplace in scientific theories.</b> <br /><br />In scientific theories, one piece of counterevidence should cause either a tweaking of the the theory or its complete demise. <br /><br /><b>Likewise, your confidence in the senses is bolstered if the senses were engineered by a competent designer, but undercut if the senses are the byproduct of a blind, aimless process.</b> <br /><br />It seems to me that reliable sense perception would provide the individual with an survival advantage and an advantage in reproductive success. Hardly aimless. NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6376955256463224749.post-46785066359795542942013-10-11T13:47:09.963-07:002013-10-11T13:47:09.963-07:00God isn't imaginary because Steve had an exper...God isn't imaginary because Steve had an experience that God was real, which Steve believes really really strongly was veridical, therefore Steve knows with certainty that God exists, and your claims of God existing only in Steve's mind is unfounded (even though there's no reason to think there's an actual external referent for Steve's experience, and it all happened only in his mind).<br /><br />I'm surprised you don't accept that Photo - it sounds perfectly reasonable to me :-PRianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08021810579773953296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6376955256463224749.post-62575134256689367762013-10-11T13:43:49.585-07:002013-10-11T13:43:49.585-07:00No, you only have the certainty of being appeared ...<i>No, you only have the certainty of being appeared to, which you construe as sensory experience. But that's consistent with a dream, hallucination, virtual reality, &c.</i><br /><br />While imaginary beings called "God," or "Christian God" are not consistent with "a dream, hallucination, virtual reality, &c." Obviously.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6376955256463224749.post-45653672039753325072013-10-11T13:35:11.893-07:002013-10-11T13:35:11.893-07:00Along those lines, I'd be interested in what i...Along those lines, I'd be interested in what is left for the immaterial mind to do, given what we now understand the brain to be responsible for (memory, personality, emotions, and so on). It seems it's been reduced to, at most, an "I" that is responsible for little or nothing else.Rianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08021810579773953296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6376955256463224749.post-6884150456302299252013-10-11T13:32:22.713-07:002013-10-11T13:32:22.713-07:00A tendentious assertion.
Simply taking the obvious...<b>A tendentious assertion.</b><br />Simply taking the obvious fact that beliefs that resemble reality more closely would be a far simpler set with far more generality and applicability to unfamiliar situations seems enough to point out a problem.<br />There are many more, and if you're interested I could probably help you track more down.<br /><br /><b>Another tendentious assertion.</b><br />Not really, since extinction is expected when the environment is changed quicker than a population is able to adapt. ALL extant species are derived from species that are now extinct.<br /><br /><b>You mean…like your impression that you're sitting in front of a computer?</b><br />Exactly. I embrace that fact, and do the best I can from there. You seem to be simply assert the veridical nature of some experience or other.<br /><br /><b>Have you studied the arguments of atheists who deny moral realism?</b><br />Some of them.<br />I've also studies the arguments of some of the atheists who argue FOR moral realism.<br /><br /><b>So you're now retracting your prior claim that it's tacitly recognizable. </b><br />Where did I claim that?<br /><br /><b>Since you stated at the outset that "God did it" is empirically consistent with everything we observe, there is no evidence for naturalism.</b><br />This statement seems to be based on a misunderstanding of my point, and I've tried to clarify further up.Rianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08021810579773953296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6376955256463224749.post-64762026625488961802013-10-11T13:32:01.942-07:002013-10-11T13:32:01.942-07:00"And yet the evidence from investigation into...<i>"And yet the evidence from investigation into the brain indicates quite strongly IMO that the mind is what the brain does, and so intelligence is indeed a result of unintelligent processes."<br /><br />Even many secular philosophers of mind regard consciousness as irreducible.</i><br /><br />A grotesque fallacy of equivocation. In philosophy consciousness can be described as an irreducible primary in the sense that it is required before any philosophy can be done. That does not mean that the phenomenon of consciousness is "irreducible" in the sense of not being explainable in terms of biophysical/biochemical/etc processes.<br /><br />But that's what apologists are all about. Rhetoric and avoidance of understanding if such understanding works in favour of their opponents.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6376955256463224749.post-76073688039642618002013-10-11T13:31:51.386-07:002013-10-11T13:31:51.386-07:00Try to master that elementary distinction.
If we ...<b>Try to master that elementary distinction. </b><br />If we followed your distinction, it seems to me that anyone could claim just about anything as veridical - including things mutually incompatible with the claimed veridical experiences of others.<br />I'm interested in what is actually true (or at least, what is likely to be true) not what I can convince myself is true.<br /><br /><b>You mean...like your impression of sitting in front of a computer could be a dream, or a hallucination, or the result of an alien abduction, or a psychic implanting that illusion in your mind, or recollection of a past life, or…</b><br />I'm not claiming my experience as necessarily veridical. I'm simply stating that I can't deny the experience itself. You seem to be claiming your experience as veridical, rather than the having of the experience as being veridical (which I think is closer to my position).<br /><br /><b>The Satan analogue could also be controlling the minds of atheists. If your hypothetical undercuts Christian theism, it simultaneously undercuts atheism.</b><br />Since, unlike you, I'm not aiming for 100% certainty, I'm ok with that - the probabilities seem, to me at least, to make that option rather less probable than naturalism.<br />However, the mere fact that this is a possible explanation for your supposedly veridical experience, seems to undercut your claim to it's veridical nature.<br /><br /><b>You're the one who keeps confusing knowledge with confidence.</b><br />Not at all. Perhaps I just have a different approach to epistemology than you.<br /><br /><b>A random association may trigger the memory. I knew it all along.</b><br />That doesn't seem to be a particularly enlightening example. Care to try again.<br /><br /><b>But that's consistent with a dream, hallucination, virtual reality,</b><br />I'm not claiming it isn't.<br /><br /><b>Which presupposes a standard of comparison. Probable in relation to what? </b><br />Whatever other explanations are being proposed, using other things I have provisional knowledge of to inform the probabilities - in short, a bayesian approach to epistemology.<br /><br /><b>Actually, given your Cartesian starting-point, anything beyond idealism is underdetermined by the evidence.</b><br />Every option is underdetermined by the evidence - that's why it's to be provisional. If the evidence overdetermined the options, then I doubt we'd be having this discussion.<br /><br /><b>you have no certainty about the empirical realm. For your impressions are consistent with simulations or hallucinations rather than external stimuli. </b><br />I've admitted as much. Did you have a point?<br /><br /><b>how do you know that your impressions resemble the stimuli? </b><br />I don't "know" in the sense that you aspire to.Rianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08021810579773953296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6376955256463224749.post-87699946296232616022013-10-11T13:30:58.295-07:002013-10-11T13:30:58.295-07:00So by your own admission, there's no empirical...<b>So by your own admission, there's no empirical evidence for atheism, inasmuch as whatever happens is consistent with "God did it."</b><br />No. Naturalism is falsifiable, as is atheism - evidence for things not natural, or evidence for a god or gods, would falsify them.<br />The problem is that theists like yourself, presumably, are not committed to ANY empirical evidence for or against your god hypothesis - it's flexible enough to explain everything.<br />YEC and the like at least derive some empirical consequences from their God hypothesis (and subsequently, that hypothesis is falsified by reality).<br /><br /><b>Are you just ignorant of basic Christian theology? Is that your problem?</b><br />No. My point is that God hypothesis are generally made to be immune to any possible refutation.<br />The universe being old or young can be made consistent with God. Evolutionary biology or special creation, or occasional manipulation are all compatible with God. Regardless of what we discover about reality, Theism generally, and Christian theism specifically, can be made compatible with it. Some theists are arguing that a multiverse is just what we;d expect from God, while others continue to claim a singular universe is what we expect from God.<br /><br /><b>You are using your impression of sitting in front of a computer to claim empirical knowledge. </b><br />My impression of sitting in front of a computer IS empirical knowledge. It's undeniable that I'm having this experience. It is possible that the experience is completely hallucinatory, or the result of demons, or whatever. The experience however is all I'm claiming. There's no circularity there.<br /><br /><b>According to you, that can only be used to claim empirical knowledge if it's true, </b><br />Steve, please explain how it can be false that I am having a sense experience?<br /><br /><b>I never appealed to a confident feeling. Try again.</b><br />You appealed to a claim of tacit knowledge concerning the the truth of Christianity, and stated that if Christianity were true you would expect such to be experienced. And then used such as a claim to knowledge that Christianity is in fact true.<br />The circularity seems rather evidence to me.<br /><br /><b>Having the veridical experience is the primary datum.</b><br />Having the experience is the primary datum.<br /><br /><b>You keep confounding what's necessary for the subject to be justified with what's necessary for the subject to justify his experience to a second-party.</b><br />You don't seem to understand that the same experience you're claiming is not necessarily veridical.Rianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08021810579773953296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6376955256463224749.post-31616392089636607582013-10-11T12:42:49.049-07:002013-10-11T12:42:49.049-07:00Cont. "It requires probability."
Which ...Cont. "It requires probability."<br /><br />Which presupposes a standard of comparison. Probable in relation to what? <br /><br />"Simplicity is not the only criteria. There are good reasons to think Idealism and Solipsism are not probable."<br /><br />Actually, given your Cartesian starting-point, anything beyond idealism is underdetermined by the evidence.<br /><br />"It's more an empirical, since the empirical is about all I can know with certainty."<br /><br />Given your own minimalistic example (the impression of sitting in front of a computer), you have no certainty about the empirical realm. For your impressions are consistent with simulations or hallucinations rather than external stimuli. <br /><br />And even if we grant external stimuli, how do you know that your impressions resemble the stimuli? <br /><br />"It hardly needs one, given the gross misunderstandings present."<br /><br />A tendentious assertion.<br /><br />"There you go proving me right about theists and their misunderstanding evolution."<br /><br />Another tendentious assertion.<br /><br />"They could certainly mess with our senses/perception. It must be difficult living in a demon haunted world, unable to know whether a demon is feeding you a delusion."<br /><br />You mean…like your impression that you're sitting in front of a computer?<br /><br />"That seems like a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of their work."<br /><br />Yet another tendentious assertion. You ran out of gas miles back. Now you're pushing your car uphill. <br /><br />Contemporary eliminative materialists regard folk psychological terms (e.g. beliefs) as empty. They don't correspond to brain states. <br /><br />"The degree to which the physical state models or represents whatever it is you're comparing it to."<br /><br />Physical states are not intrinsically representational. Rather, an external agent must assign or arrange them to be referential. Say, arranging rocks on a beach to spell out S.O.S. <br /><br />By itself, that could be a random pattern. It's code language which means nothing apart from agents who confer extrinsic significance on that physical state. <br /><br />"Since athsism doesn't necessarily lead to moral relatavism or nihilism, I can indeed continue to state that truth."<br /><br />Have you studied the arguments of atheists who deny moral realism?<br /><br />"Naturalism for me is a conclusion I've arrived at, not something I've settled on prior to investigation"<br /><br />So you're now retracting your prior claim that it's tacitly recognizable. <br /><br />"As it stands, what you're claiming as tacit knowledge is pretty much what we could expect if naturalism were true."<br /><br />Since you stated at the outset that "God did it" is empirically consistent with everything we observe, there is no evidence for naturalism. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6376955256463224749.post-26183626433772247742013-10-11T12:41:39.032-07:002013-10-11T12:41:39.032-07:00Rian
"No, but the gosd hypothesis is free o...Rian <br /><br />"No, but the gosd hypothesis is free of any empirical consequences, meaning that regardless of what the universe tells us, 'God did it' can be made compatible with the claim."<br /><br />So by your own admission, there's no empirical evidence for atheism, inasmuch as whatever happens is consistent with "God did it."<br /><br />"Something that explains everything like that actual fails to explain anything."<br /><br />Christians don't use "God did it" to explain everything. Christian theism doesn't entail occasionalism. The Bible has a doctrine of ordinary providence. Many things happen by natural causes. God doesn't do everything himself. He created personal agents and natural agencies that do many things. Are you just ignorant of basic Christian theology? Is that your problem?<br /><br />"It can only be used to claim knowledge if it is true, and yet that knowledge is used as the basis for claiming it's truth. It's viciously circular."<br /><br />By that logic, your own claim about "raw empirical experiences, such as the experience of sitting in front of a computer writting a comment on a blog" is viciously circular. You are using your impression of sitting in front of a computer to claim empirical knowledge. According to you, that can only be used to claim empirical knowledge if it's true, and yet that putative knowledge is used as the basis for claiming it's truth. So your example is viciously circular.<br /><br />"If Christianity were true I would feel confident that Christianity were true."<br /><br />I never appealed to a confident feeling. Try again.<br /><br />"But only if the subject is able to establish the veridical nature of the experience."<br /><br />The subject doesn't have to establish the veridicality of his experience to have a veridical experience. You're confusing the order of being with the order of knowing. Having the veridical experience is the primary datum. Demonstration is secondary. You can't demonstrate it unless you have it, in which case you can have it apart from demonstration.<br />You keep confounding what's necessary for the subject to be justified with what's necessary for the subject to justify his experience to a second-party. Try to master that elementary distinction. <br /><br />"Since the experience we're talking about could have a seemingly infinite number of explanations, only 1 of which would render it veridical, the probabilities don't appear to be in your favour."<br /><br />You mean...like your impression of sitting in front of a computer could be a dream, or a hallucination, or the result of an alien abduction, or a psychic implanting that illusion in your mind, or recollection of a past life, or…<br /><br />"And if something like, but not the same as, Christianity were true, the Satan analogue could indeed be controlling the minds of Christians."<br /><br />The Satan analogue could also be controlling the minds of atheists. If your hypothetical undercuts Christian theism, it simultaneously undercuts atheism. <br /><br />"So you're one of the folk who demands absolute confidence in anything in order to call it knowledge. Good luck with that."<br /><br />You're the one who keeps confusing knowledge with confidence. For instance, it's possible to forget something I know. The memory is buried in my subconscious. A random association may trigger the memory. I knew it all along.<br /><br />"Untrue - I have the certainty that I am having sense experiences."<br /><br />No, you only have the certainty of being appeared to, which you construe as sensory experience. But that's consistent with a dream, hallucination, virtual reality, &c.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6376955256463224749.post-89147700986672886812013-10-10T17:52:33.482-07:002013-10-10T17:52:33.482-07:00I told you, Steve, that I was happy to be of help....I told you, Steve, that I was happy to be of help.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6376955256463224749.post-11399987487909737542013-10-10T16:02:24.187-07:002013-10-10T16:02:24.187-07:00As if you're the expert.
No, but I do try to f...<b>As if you're the expert.</b><br />No, but I do try to follow and understand the experts.<br /><br /><b>Calling it "terrible" is not a refutation.</b><br />It hardly needs one, given the gross misunderstandings present.<br /><br /><b>Is that why Darwinians say about 98% of species are extinct? Evolution seems to optimize extinction rather than survival.</b><br />There you go proving me right about theists and their misunderstanding evolution.<br /><br /><b>In Christian theism, demons didn't create our senses. Try again.</b><br />They could certainly mess with our senses/perception. It must be difficult living in a demon haunted world, unable to know whether a demon is feeding you a delusion.<br /><br /><b>According to them, brain states don't generate beliefs.</b><br />That seems like a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of their work.<br /><br /><b>That wasn't my argument, but if you want to go there, what makes a physical state true or false? </b><br />The degree to which the physical state models or represents whatever it is you're comparing it to.<br /><br /><b>Even many secular philosophers of mind regard consciousness as irreducible.</b><br />Good for them, and it may very well be.<br /><br /><b>It means you can't insinuate that Christians are caricaturing atheism when Christians point out that atheism leads to moral relativism or nihilism. </b><br />Since athsism doesn't necessarily lead to moral relatavism or nihilism, I can indeed continue to state that truth.<br /><br /><b>Rather, I pointed out that many prominent atheists concede the amorality of an atheist worldview. </b><br />And many atheists do not.<br /><br /><b>What features of naturalism are tacitly recognizable?</b><br />Naturalism for me is a conclusion I've arrived at, not something I've settled on prior to investigation, and as such (and like my other beliefs) is provisional in nature and open to revision.<br /><br /><b>Tacit knowledge is not a "feeling."</b><br />Ok. What you claim as tacit knowledge of Christianity could have presented in many different ways, many of which would have provided more reason to think that Christianity is true. As it stands, what you're claiming as tacit knowledge is pretty much what we could expect if naturalism were true.Rianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08021810579773953296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6376955256463224749.post-28598830663032960752013-10-10T16:00:12.510-07:002013-10-10T16:00:12.510-07:00Is God compatible with theism and atheism alike?
N...<b>Is God compatible with theism and atheism alike?</b><br />No, but the gosd hypothesis is free of any empirical consequences, meaning that regardless of what the universe tells us, "God did it" can be made compatible with the claim. Something that explains everything like that actual fails to explain anything.<br /><br /><b>i) If it's true, it can be used to claim knowledge–and if it's false, it can't. So your denial is arbitrarily one-sided. </b><br />It can only be used to claim knowledge if it is true, and yet that knowledge is used as the basis for claiming it's truth.<br />It's viciously circular.<br />P1. If Christianity were true I would feel confident that Christianity were true.<br />P2. I feel confident that Christianity is true.<br />C. Therefore Christianity is true.<br /><br /><b>If an individual had a veridical experience, that's sufficient warrant for him,</b><br />But only if the subject is able to establish the veridical nature of the experience.<br />Since the experience we're talking about could have a seemingly infinite number of explanations, only 1 of which would render it veridical, the probabilities don't appear to be in your favour.<br /><br /><b>If Christianity is true, then Satan isn't controlling the minds of Christians.</b><br />And if something like, but not the same as, Christianity were true, the Satan analogue could indeed be controlling the minds of Christians.<br /><br /><b>If it's knowledge, it's not provisional. If it's provisional, it's not knowledge.</b><br />So you're one of the folk who demands absolute confidence in anything in order to call it knowledge. Good luck with that.<br /><br /><b>You have no anchor.</b><br />Untrue - I have the certainty that I am having sense experiences.<br /><br /><b>What is "more likely" presupposes a standard of comparison. </b><br />It requires probability.<br /><br /><b>Idealism is simple. Solipcism is simple. Zenonian timelessness is simple. </b><br />Simplicity is not the only criteria. There are good reasons to think Idealism and Solipsism are not probable.<br /><br /><b>Your Cartesian methodology won't get you much beyond solipsism. Maybe idealism in a pinch.</b><br />If you say so. It's more an empirical, since the empirical is about all I can know with certainty.<br />Rianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08021810579773953296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6376955256463224749.post-50388308068209851932013-10-10T15:27:16.530-07:002013-10-10T15:27:16.530-07:00Cont. "Also, I find evolutionary processes ar...Cont. "Also, I find evolutionary processes are often misunderstood by theists."<br /><br />As if you're the expert.<br /><br />"Your point here seems reminiscent of Plantinga's terrible 'Evolutionary Argument.'"<br /><br />Calling it "terrible" is not a refutation.<br /><br />"Evolution may be blind and directionless, but it does tend to optimise survival."<br /><br />Is that why Darwinians say about 98% of species are extinct? Evolution seems to optimize extinction rather than survival.<br /><br />"Under theism there is no reason to trust our senses at all (it could all be demons, after all)."<br /><br />In Christian theism, demons didn't create our senses. Try again.<br /><br />"As separate from brain states - on their view, as I understand it the mind is what the brain does/is."<br /><br />They deny the existence of mental states like beliefs. According to them, brain states don't generate beliefs.<br />In that event, there are no true or false beliefs. Well, that's a pretty wholesale denial of rationality.<br /><br />"If you require 'rationality' to be divorced from brain states, then you're correct. I don't see the justification for this requirement however."<br /><br />What about rationality divorced from beliefs, period?<br /><br />"I'd have to reread the book to be sure, but I believe Dennett accepts that the mind and intelligence arise from the brain."<br /><br />"Intelligence" which amounts to nothing over and above its unintelligent constituents. Collective unintelligence.<br /><br />"You're claim is obviously true if you assume the mind must be more than the brain in some way (which you appear to be doing)."<br /><br />That wasn't my argument, but if you want to go there, what makes a physical state true or false? <br /><br />"And yet the evidence from investigation into the brain indicates quite strongly IMO that the mind is what the brain does, and so intelligence is indeed a result of unintelligent processes."<br /><br />Even many secular philosophers of mind regard consciousness as irreducible.<br /><br />"Which means what exactly?"<br /><br />It means you can't insinuate that Christians are caricaturing atheism when Christians point out that atheism leads to moral relativism or nihilism. For many atheists admit that amoral consequence.<br /><br />"That's a fairly serious case of begging the question, is it not?"<br /><br />You have a problem following the argument. I didn't use Christianity as the standard of comparison in that respect. Rather, I pointed out that many prominent atheists concede the amorality of an atheist worldview. Try again.<br /><br />"It seems to me that this tacit recognition as we actually find it, is just as likely on Naturalism"<br /><br />What features of naturalism are tacitly recognizable? <br /><br />"There are certainly other ways this feeling could have presented…"<br /><br />Tacit knowledge is not a "feeling." stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6376955256463224749.post-48731983789015842422013-10-10T15:25:59.831-07:002013-10-10T15:25:59.831-07:00Rian
"Well, God is seemingly compatible with...Rian<br /><br />"Well, God is seemingly compatible with anything and it's opposite - it's the universal hypothesis."<br /><br />Is God compatible with theism and atheism alike?<br /><br />"Which assumes the truth of Christianity - this can only be the case if Christianity WERE true, and surely can't be used to claim knowledge THAT Christianity IS true."<br /><br />i) If it's true, it can be used to claim knowledge–and if it's false, it can't. So your denial is arbitrarily one-sided. <br /><br />ii) One of your confusions may be failure to distinguish between what the subject of experience is justified in believing (or knowing), and whether that's sufficient evidence for an outsider, who only has a second-hand report. If an individual had a veridical experience, that's sufficient warrant for him, even if it might be insufficient for a second party who wasn't privy to that experience. And that goes back to my distinction between knowing and showing. <br /><br />For instance, I have memories of things I did with my late grandmother. I can't prove it to you, but it's sufficient for me. I was there, you weren't. <br /><br />"Also, if something like Christianity were true, there would be any number of ways you could falsely acquire this feeling of the truth of Christianity - after all, it would surely be a simple matter for Satan to implant that confidence in you in order to confuse the truth, would it not?"<br /><br />If Christianity is true, then Satan isn't controlling the minds of Christians. <br /><br />"The explanatory power of the Christian worldview is usually over estimated by those who are convinced of it's truth, in my experience."<br /><br />An unargued assertion.<br /><br />"It doesn't get you to certainty, but rather to provisional knowledge."<br /><br />If it's knowledge, it's not provisional. If it's provisional, it's not knowledge.<br /><br />"I see no vicious cycle. I see things which I can be more of less confident are more or less correct, and which can shift when new information becomes available."<br /><br />If "most everything" you think you know is provisional and subject to revision, then you're just rearranging doubtful opinions. You have no anchor.<br /><br />"From there we can build up what is more likely to be the case, always with the understanding that even if it were the case that I were hooked up to a VR program, or whatever, I have to carry on AS IF that were not the case."<br /><br />What is "more likely" presupposes a standard of comparison. <br /><br />"And of course, there seems to be no good evidence to believe I am actually hooked up in that fashion - the simpler and more probable explanation is that I am having the experience of sitting in front of a computer because I am in fact sitting in front of a computer."<br /><br />Idealism is simple. Solipcism is simple. Zenonian timelessness is simple. <br /><br />"I'm not trusting with certainty the reliability of sense knowledge - as I explained, the having of the experience seems undeniable. Everything else about reality can be built provisionally from there."<br /><br />Your Cartesian methodology won't get you much beyond solipsism. Maybe idealism in a pinch.<br /><br />"Our senses can be fooled, so if there were a designer he did a sub-optimal job."<br /><br />You're confusing sensation with perception. Try again.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6376955256463224749.post-9907257187095201422013-10-10T14:15:57.175-07:002013-10-10T14:15:57.175-07:00Although I thought your first comment sufficiently...Although I thought your first comment sufficiently illustrated the intellectual vacuity of the village atheist, it's nice to see that you have vacuity to spare. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6376955256463224749.post-14522581574815770592013-10-09T17:32:55.537-07:002013-10-09T17:32:55.537-07:00Well, God is seemingly compatible with anything an...Well, God is seemingly compatible with anything and it's opposite - it's the universal hypothesis.<br />Which makes it absolutely useless and an actual explanation :-)Rianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08021810579773953296noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6376955256463224749.post-41541795172347108172013-10-09T16:44:15.547-07:002013-10-09T16:44:15.547-07:00"But that's consistent with a hallucinati..."But that's consistent with a hallucination. Consistent with you're having been sedated and hooked on to a VR program–where input from your neurointerface simulates sitting in front of a computer. "<br /><br />But involving an imaginary being is not questionable at all, of course. ALl you need is call it "God" and there's no problem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com