Winstonm, on Jun 2 2008, 07:23 PM, said:
Quote
i have to go to work but let me ask this first.. i'll try to find time to answer you more specifically.. in your opinion, does the content of a true belief enter the causal chain leading to behavior, or does it not?
I have no opinion on this as I have never considered it - but now I will try.
It would make sense to me that the content of a true belief could enter in a causal chain leading to behavior.
Now, let me re-ask my question - why is it that someone like me, with no formal training at all, can understand the problems with Plantinga's arguments, while someone like yourself, presenting yourself as studied in logic, seem to have difficulty grasping the flaws as presented in the critique?
i don't know how far i'll get in addressing some of the posts over the last few days, but i'll try... this is the first (that i saw), so i'll start here... ok winston, that's why i asked what i did (and thanks for your answer)... if you recall, richard's main criticism (if i understood him) was based on that found in the link he posted - the
R value in plantinga's argument..
his argument consists of 3 main terms,
N (naturalism),
E (evolution), and
R... plantinga defined
R (paraphrasing) as the reliability of our cognitive faculties
he states that beliefs can only affect you and me (in an evolutionary sense) to the extent they affect our behavior... now your answer above seems to indicate that a true belief does affect our behavior, but plantina then asks "what about untrue beliefs?"... what he's asking in effect is, if beliefs (true or untrue) can affect our behavior, can no beliefs at all do so? and if beliefs do affect behavior in a naturalist worldview, are they neurally hard-wired (ie., a product of evolution)? what percentage of our beliefs would have to be true, given your thought above, for man to have adapted enough to survive?
in spite of the link provided by richard, most philosophers who object to plantina's argument do so on the grounds that all it proves is that neither theism nor naturalism would matter, both are equally apt to lead to error... this, to me, is a far more valid criticism (but that's just me)... that's because it lowers the threshold for true beliefs to lead to adaptive behavior and, it is said, does away with one of plantinga's major strengths - the idea of 'defeaters' for the reliability of our faculties
now there's a whole other set of objections from those who hold an opposite view to yours - that beliefs per se are a casual chain towards behavior... plantinga has answered all criticisms, and much better than i could ever hope to... if it really interests you, read some of those and then just believe what you want
TimG, on Jun 3 2008, 07:16 PM, said:
luke warm, on Jun 3 2008, 05:23 PM, said:
my grandson (who we are raising) has baseball games and/or practice (practice tonight, i leave in 10 minutes), i work and do other things... i'll try to work on getting my priorities straight
I did not mean to imply that you owed a response. You have obviously spent a lot of time thinking about this topic and a lot of time posting in this thread. And, I was looking forward to reading your response to my post. I felt kind of silly checking this thread so quickly upon my return. I meant the post merely as an admission of that interest, not as a demand upon anyone's time.
i didn't mean to imply that i took it as a demand, you have good questions, thoughtfully stated with no personal attacks (which is the way it should be, imo)
Quote
Is the complaint that Richard (and others) have a predisposition not to believe in the super-natural? Or, that we have a predisposition not to believe specifically in the Christian super-natural?
not so much a compliant (although of the choices you give i would say christianity gets the most criticism - and i understand why) but simply a statement seeking agreement that we all have presuppositions
Quote
I do not doubt that you believe in the tenants of Christianity. But, I do not believe there is evidence to support your beliefs; I deny the Christian God. I don't deny your beliefs, I just think you are wrong!
i know you do, i wish you didn't but believe me when i say i know why you do... but we won't get into that
Quote
I have not heard any convincing argument for the existence of God, either. I believe the onus of proof is on those who believe in the existence of God rather than on those who do not believe.
most arguments for God's existence (the christian God) that i use are, as richard asked and i affirmed earlier, based on the fact that the explanations posed by other worldviews for the existence of things lead to irrationality... iow, the proof of the christian God boils down to the impossibility of the contrary... now i do know the arguments against that view, i've debated people who use all sorts of arguments... when debates are refereed by those qualified to do so, the results might not be what you suspect (this is apart from whether or not the "audience" is persuaded of the rightness of either position, by the way)
the late greg bahnsen had many very famous debates, you can probably find a few either in print or on youtube, you be the judge... i could never hope to hold my own against some of those against whom he debated... as for your last sentence in the above quote, let me just say that it isn't only the side taking the affirmative that must prove a thing... for example, if you and i were debating "does a belief in the existence of abstract entities presuppose the christian God?" you would be expected to hold up your end of the struggle (and no, i'm not offering nor challenging - i doubt i'd have enough time to do a debate justice)
Quote
You are still avoiding the question regarding the virgin birth.
i'm sorry, i couldn't find the question... if you asked whether or not i believe it, the answer is yes... if you asked whether or not i can prove it, the answer is no... if you're asking whether or not i take it on faith, the answer is yes
one more thing to note, i don't presume to speak for all christians or to hold beliefs in common with all (or even a majority) of them... i believe what i believe, they believe what they believe, and that's pretty much where it stands... it might not seem so, but i do respect your views and even more your right to them... if anything i've written implies otherwise, point it out and i'll retract it
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)