TGBaker wrote:

]I certainly would not disagree with an OTF from an agnostic ground. . It makesI think atheists and theists alike paint faith as believing something with no good reason. I think for example the ontological arguments of Plantinga plavce the discussion in a rational context though failing to prove the premise itself to the conclusion.

I think Plantinga cheats in his OA... and as a rule, I think OA's are bad arguments anyways.

Whether atheists and theists define faith as such, I do not necessarily think that it belief without reason. It is unfortunate that people do this though...

Certainly all of the OA beg the question but they formalize the argument at best. I have a friend who is the author of several of the Plantinga introductions and overviews. He studied under Plantinga and wound up writing papers showing the failures of many of Plantinga's projects.

He still sees Plantinga as one of the most significant writers for epistemology in the 20th century.  I haven't talked about it in awhile but Sennett was working on a justification of faith without belief which makes me cringe. 

Sorry bout the typing between my eyesight the chemo and trying to get out the door I feel always rushed though I'm not working My transport to the clinic this morning came while I was writing the previous post so I ended aburptly.

I think the multiple choice thingy in the OTF ( apply on your faith the same standards as you do of those you reject)was what I was referring to but it does apply with Pascal. I mean how do hedge your bets. What if i choose Christianity and shoulda been Muslim?

AS to the genetic fallacy. I can understand the criticism. I think that it does go to point though a generalization. If you are born in a Islamic culture there is a 95% probability that you will believe and practice that faith. It runs high like that from Christian families.  Douglas Wilson for example admits that the basis of his Christianity was the fact his parents were and he wa raised so. I think OTF then falls into a rule of thumb category.

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Certainly all of the OA beg the question but they formalize the argument at best. I have a friend who is the author of several of the Plantinga introductions and overviews. He studied under Plantinga and wound up writing papers showing the failures of many of Plantinga's projects.

I think all that Plantinga has done is shown that his reformed epistemology is coherent in and of itself. His claim is that it is rational because it is properly basic. I grant that, but the products of such epistemologies is dubious -- that is they are not grounded. The same problem rears its head in molinism too, of which Plantiga is an adherent to as well. I think his OA and his Free Will Defense on for the same reason.

WLC seems more dismissive of the objection, claiming there's no consensus in the opposition. But that's not a defense at all... it's just an argument from silence. He also compares the volumes of his writings with that of opposition... I don't think one has to write 30 20-page essays that say the same thing to make the objection. A simple paragraph or two will do. Gettier turned the classical understanding of knowledge on its head in just 1 3-page essay.

TGBaker wrote:

He still sees Plantinga as one of the most significant writers for epistemology in the 20th century.  I haven't talked about it in awhile but Sennett was working on a justification of faith without belief which makes me cringe. 

Faith without belief in what sense? JTB or TB minus the B equals JT or T?... I'm not sure how that's possible...

TGBaker wrote:

Sorry bout the typing between my eyesight the chemo and trying to get out the door I feel always rushed though I'm not working My transport to the clinic this morning came while I was writing the previous post so I ended aburptly.

I hope the treatments are going well...

TGBaker wrote:

I think the multiple choice thingy in the OTF ( apply on your faith the same standards as you do of those you reject)was what I was referring to but it does apply with Pascal. I mean how do hedge your bets. What if i choose Christianity and shoulda been Muslim?

Pascal argues from two pragmatic justification which are expectation and superdominance. Pascal thought the expectation was 50/50 for God. The superdominance in any case would swamp any expectation so long as it is not zero. The problem, as noted by many, is that there are many possible options (i.e. "many-gods objection" ) Given this, the expectation is no longer 50/50, rather devvied up among the rest of the options. If their are many options, then there is no certain option that is more likely that the others. But I do not think that the expectation is equal -- rather in favor of one option.

I approach this with two criterion (that I outlined earlier) from hope and incredulity. Hope would apply to pragmatic reasons, and incredulity with evidential reasons. I think some would be more biased towards hope and others towards incredulity. Through a pragmatic evaluation of truth claims (William James has been particularly helpful here) and evaluation of the evidence, I think Christianity is one's best bet for the hope factor and incredulity factor. For this reason, I don't think one has to favor hope or incredulity. I can outline this more if you want...

TGBaker wrote:

AS to the genetic fallacy. I can understand the criticism. I think that it does go to point though a generalization. If you are born in a Islamic culture there is a 95% probability that you will believe and practice that faith. It runs high like that from Christian families.  Douglas Wilson for example admits that the basis of his Christianity was the fact his parents were and he wa raised so. I think OTF then falls into a rule of thumb category.

My entire approach to belief I think is largely heuristical -- that is an application of "rules-of-thumb".

We seem to agree or have common views in many areas. I am found of William James and pragmatism. My main studies of late have been regarding consciousness.  Our whole grounding in knowledge seems to be dependent on the empirical acceptance of our mental constructs phenomenologically not just correlating but corresponding the "external" world as it effects our senses. I guess with pascal you could weigh the rationality of one faith over another then bet on the probable one.  That is what I've been doing with atheism since I moved from a Pannenbergian panentheism to an atheistic modified Buddhism to a skeptical stance completely.

James Sennett's article about faith without belief.

 http://faculty.brenau.edu/jsennett/research/acceptance.htm

Hello

Wow, this thread is causing me to have diarrhea. Very absurd.

Pascal was wrong. Probability is not Christianity. 2nd, the Bible did not say to kill everybody who disagrees with you. There were a time where this was allowed via a specific people for a piece of specific land. This was under the theocratic kingdom, that was ended during the period of the judges.

Also, God needed to show His justice and His mercy to Israel since there was no written Word about his attributes and nature and character. This was a demonstration in which He chose certain men to record such things under inspiration.

2nd, to say that we do not like the Old Testament because we don't take everything literally is by definition non-literal. If you take a figure of speech literal, you are taking it out of context since the true literal rendering is via the intent of the figure of speech itself.

To based Christian belief on Wikipedia is extremely laughable and amusing. When I quote major reference works to define atheism, everybody has a temper tantrum. But when you quote a very unreliable source, wikipedia, you take it and run with it.

This is extremely hilarious. Talk about double talk.

Anyway, denominations are over non-essentials, not essentials. THus the Baptists, and even the AoG along with the rest are united under essentials

In Essentials Unity

In non-Essentials Liberty

In all, charity (Augustine)

Though, there area some denominations that differ on the essentials, making their non-christians. Examples are ROman Catholicism, Seventh Day Adventism, Mormonism, etc.

I think responding to this thread was a huge waste of time. It's like throwing a ball at a cloud and expecting it to bounce back. There's nothing there.

And TG, my hippie Jesus Movement friend. You have never done that, been there. I John 2:19 says you were never a Christian. Only a professing heretic. Sorry to break the news.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Hi TG,

So you are elect? You are doubting your atheism? I enjoy discussing things with heretics and pagans. Regarding language barriers, you are correct. I learned this as a very young lad. That's why I speak many languages. I can speak atheism, agnosticism, free thinker, Existialism via Sarte, Bultmann, Marx, Sa

tansim, Mormonism, Seventh Day Adventism.

I rarely speak the language of monergism unless the sovereignty of God is brought up or something along that line.

Okay, you were a Southern Baptist, then you were a Calvinists? But you apostosized over the Trinity correct? Why? I'm just curious.

Okay, maybe we can revisit your journey and take me with you. What were the first issues you had trouble with. It started with the Trinity and then what? Inerrancy? Take me down the path you went down and show me where you had trouble with what?

If you're up for it, it may be fun. That why I can correct your errors.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Wowzers1 wrote: Then why do atheists spend so much time talking about it with Christians then?

In my experience, I don't initiate such conversations. The only places I openly discuss my beliefs (Wicca) are on fora where I do not expect someone to hunt me down and kill me, like this one or Mensa or Intertel Atheists, or with my parents, when they ask me (not often). Not with my son. (He is in the hunt-me-down camp, and because of his own and mother's beliefs does not associate with me.)

On the other hand, it seems that Christians of my acquaintance delight in never-ending discussions trying to "bait" me into this-or-that position. And generally, I don't discuss my own theological beliefs with atheists, either, as they are usually uninterested in my position nor trying to bait me. Or being atheists, already know at least in general about Wicca (because atheists of my acquaintance, such as my wife, actually learn about various and sundry religious faiths); I have a good enough command of English vocabulary to understand what the word "atheist" means so I don't bother them with something they are generally uninterested in.

Hi Wiccan,

I know more about Wicca then you (LOL). Wiccans don't argue (consistent ones) because they deny logic and reason, but instead use intuitiion or volition for knowing. Thus it starts completely subjectively.

Technically speaking, Wicca doesn't believe in God or gods via entity but rather via the subconsious of presense or mind, and within that reality, they exist.

Unless you get higher up in the levels. Have you heard of the green man (Murray, not Wicca) or the stag god.

Why would an absurd wiccan who hates logic want to discuss anything logical.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).