Do you accept the idea of "properly basic"? I find it a blatant attempt to justify not having justify one's belief ala TAG/presup.Very nice summary! Well done.
If memory serves, Plantinga opts for the term "warrant" instead of "justified" because he rejects the moral implications of the latter term. I believe he brings up Clifford's principle in that discussion in Warranted Christian Belief. At any rate, thank you for this observation.
You are conflating the specific category of appeal to false authority with the more general category of appeal to authority. The traditional definition of the appeal to authority fallacy is that it applies when the authority is speaking within that authority figure's field. One is fallacious in arguing something is correct simply because "X says so." no matter the level of expertise within or without X's field of expertise. If one is reduced to appealing to the authority of an expert in the field , it is reasonable to assume that one has no logical, well thought out, fact based argument to put forward and one's belief that Z is the case is simply based upon faith in an authority figure i.e. one is basing one's argument upon appealing to authority.
Let me appeal to authority on this and see if you will concede that I must therefore be right.
From logically fallacious.com
Appeal to Authority
argumentum ad verecundiam
(also known as: argument from authority, ipse dixit)
Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. Also see the appeal to false
authority.
From SoftSchools.com
Appeal to Authority Examples
Appeal to Authority
Appeal to authority is a common type of fallacy, or an argument based on unsound logic.
When writers or speakers use appeal to authority, they are claiming that something must be true because it is believed by someone who said to be an "authority" on the subject. Whether the person is actually an authority or not, the logic is unsound. Instead of presenting actual evidence, the argument just relies on the credibility of the "authority."
Examples of Appeal to Authority:
1. A commercial claims that a specific brand of cereal is the best way to start the day because athlete Michael Jordan says that it is what he eats every day for breakfast.
2. A book argues that global warming is not actually happening, and cites the research of one environmental scientist who has been studying climate change for several years.
3. Someone argues that drinking is morally wrong and cites a sermon from her pastor at church.
4. A little boy says that his friends should not go swimming in a river because his Mama said there were germs in the river.
5. A commercial claims that 3 out of 4 dentists would choose this particular brand of toothpaste for their own families to use.
6. My sister-in-law, who is a teacher, said that this school is not somewhere that I would want to send my children.
I find it a blatant attempt to justify not having justify one's belief ala TAG/presup.
That has been my experience. I feel fairly confident that I am familiar with many of the arguments against the existence of God, and yet I still believe. I'm not sure what to do with that.
I'm at work right now and have plans this evening. I think your post is worthy of better than a one liner. If I haven't responded in a day (say, tomorrow evening US-CST), please feel free to send me a PM.I understand why you say that.
A different, simpler way to address such a phenomenon is with William Rowe's "G.E. Moore Shift." He specifically applies the move to atheistic arguments in his chapter of The Problem of Evil.
Of course the sensus divinitatis would never be accepted by atheists.
I have always been a fan of Moore, not only because I am confident that this is a hand (as I wildly shake my right hand in the air). I wasn't familiar with Rowe's "G.E. Moore Shift" as it is nicely laid out in the IEP article you linked. Good stuff. I have always appreciated Rowe's "friendly atheism." Regardless of the fact that Rowe was an atheist, I have great respect for him and believe we lost a very talented philosopher when he died in 2015. Now, if we can just get more Christians and Atheists on CF to catch on to the Principle of Charity.
Principle of charity - Wikipedia
When I first read Plantinga's WCB, and came across his employment of the sensus divinitatis, I thought, "Why is he doing that? If anyone opposed to Christian belief has been with him up to this point, they've bailed by now." However, it's important to keep in mind that he is not trying to make a truth claim. He emphasizes this over and over. He is simply trying to give a model or an account as one possible explanation for the warrant of Christian belief. The model doesn't have to be true, it only has to offer a reasonable explanation. Going back to Rowe, unless someone reads Plantinga with the principle of charity, I doubt they are going to accept his model as reasonable or having any explanatory value.
Or, think about Plantinga's "free will" defense in regards to the logical problem of evil. I heard this account in college so it may be apocryphal, but when Jerry Walls was at Asbury Seminary (think Why I'm not a Calvinist) he criticized Plantinga's free will defense on the grounds that Plantinga is Reformed and (presumably) doesn't believe in free will. Plantinga responded that his purpose was not to argue for free will, but to come up with an argument that would function as a defeater for the logical problem of evil. Whether he believed in free will or not was beside the point.
I think his employment of the sensus should be read in a similar vein, whether it is true or not is beside the point. Does his model offer a satisfactory account of warranted Christian belief, if it were true? Some will complain that's not how models work. But, when it comes to God and belief in God (or lack thereof), no one knows the truth, in the strictest sense of "knows." So, in this instance that is exactly how models work. Presumably, an atheist who presents her model will be given the same allowance. Can she prove the non-existence of God? No. Does her model offer warrant for atheistic non-belief, if it were true? Possibly.
See, philosophy is fun!
What is your opinion? It seems to me that Reformed apologetics are largely defensive in that they attempt to rationally justify the believer's position without making a rational critique of the nonbeliever's position. It seems somewhat fideistic in that reason follows upon faith and that religious disputes cannot be adjudicated by reason apart from a grounding in faith.
Do you accept the idea of "properly basic"? I find it a blatant attempt to justify not having justify one's belief ala TAG/presup.
I understand why you say that.
I find the concept of "properly basic" beliefs to be compelling. I take it you are familiar with Plantinga's work. One thing he does is ask what we are to do with those who have considered the relevant, possible defeaters for belief in God, and yet still believe.
Why not? atheists accept lots of things. What's different about this particular assertion that makes it totally unacceptable to non-believers?Of course the sensus divinitatis would never be accepted by atheists.
Same thing Christians do for people who have a "properly basic" belief in Allah, Buddhism, or crystal healing.
My familiarity is only with some aspects of Reformed epistemology, and from what I am familiar with I believe you're right. It is along the lines of Anselm's credo ut intelligam. That being said, Plantinga's Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism is not only a defense of Christian belief and its compatibility with science, but a clear critique of the compatibility of naturalism and science. Is that considered Reformed apologetics? I really don't know.
Credo ut intelligam - Wikipedia
https://www.amazon.com/Where-Conflict-Really-Lies-Naturalism/dp/0199812098
Sufficient evidence is arguably based on a weaker epistemological standard or relative to that versus something more like conclusive evidence (not absolute evidence, but something more solid and justified by a rigorous epistemologyIf we needed sufficient evidence to become christians and believe, then the number of believers would be a lot smaller. But this does not mean you cannot get evidence especially after believing.
Obviously, it would require a more thorough epistemological standard, though there's always the existential route which gets into prickly territory of fideism, etc. If that becomes the standard, it seems like you could justify anything based on that, since the sufficient evidence of the experience is all you require in regards to taking the leap of faith, etc.Personally, I don't accept the idea. But then again, I don't accept the idea that the whole process of "justification"--- of any epistemological sort --- is as easy as some folks like to make it out to be, either, especially where religion is concerned.
Well, if it were me I'd realize that a process which led to people being warranted in believing mutually contradictory things about reality might be less that useful when put into practice.And what do all Christians do in those instances? What do I do?
Do any of them have a way to sort out this particular issue?
Same here. But I dont agree that what it senses is necessarily the biblical God. It could just as well be the awakening of a dormant aspect of our own minds as far as I can tell.....I tend to think that something like the sensus divinitatis does exist....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?