Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I think you're right.....especially if this Banjo story started a couple thousand years ago. Sure...we now know that eyewitness accounts are deeply flawed. Back before nearly every other form of testimony, eyewitnesses were absolutely essential for deciding who to believe.
Are there any other forms of "good evidence" you'd accept? Anything, perhaps, less reliable than eyewitnesses?
What if all there was were anonymous stories of nameless witness accounts? Good enough?
I'm somewhat confused. Given that you changed your mind about the possibility of being wrong only recently, are you saying that you approached these worldviews skeptically approximately 15 years ago?Approximately 15 years ago.
As an aside, I recently finished marking lab reports on this very topic. The verdict? Eyewitness identification is far from optimal, but there is the possibility it could work well under certain conditions.I don't know that eyewitness accounts are deeply flawed.
That's good to hear.And I changed my mind about the logical possibility of me being wrong about my beliefs after reading the question I was asked and meditating on it.
That's good to hear.Given that the "inner witness" argument from personal religious experience was emblematic of that disposition, I presume you no longer consider that argument tenable?
I'm somewhat confused. Given that you changed your mind about the possibility of being wrong only recently, are you saying that you approached these worldviews skeptically approximately 15 years ago?
Perhaps some context would help. William Lane Craig claims to know that his religious beliefs are true primarily on the basis of the "inner witness of the holy spirit," which he considers incontrovertible. Consequently, if evidence against his theological commitments were to become apparent, Craig would feel under no obligation to revise his theology, no matter how strong the evidence against it. As I recall, in an earlier conversation, you appeared to support this line of thinking. Given that it is emblematic of a disposition you no longer hold (that you cannot be wrong about your religious beliefs), I presume you no longer consider this argument tenable?I don't know what argument you are referring to.
I'm afraid this only deepens the confusion for me. If you had never considered the possibility that you could be wrong up until a month ago, then can you honestly say that you approached these questions objectively roughly 15 years ago? After all, approaching the matter honestly requires one to accept the possibility of error in their thinking. If you only began to accept that possibility a month ago, then it seems strange to say that you approached it honestly roughly 15 years ago. But perhaps I have confused the story. I don't expect you to have perfect recollection of your initial disposition when you began investigating the matter 15 years ago.I'm not comfortable using the world "skeptically" any longer. Too many people have a view other than the one you have and I would rather just say I approached them objectively and honestly roughly 15 years ago. Before a month ago, I never thought too deeply about the strict logical possibility of me being wrong about my views.
I don't know that eyewitness accounts are deeply flawed.
Perhaps some context would help. William Lane Craig claims to know that his religious beliefs are true primarily on the basis of the "inner witness of the holy spirit," which he considers incontrovertible. Consequently, if evidence against his theological commitments were to become apparent, Craig would feel under no obligation to revise his theology, no matter how strong the evidence against it. As I recall, in an earlier conversation, you appeared to support this line of thinking. Given that it is emblematic of a disposition you no longer hold (that you cannot be wrong about your religious beliefs), I presume you no longer consider this argument tenable?
In effect, that seems to be exactly what he is arguing, since no amount of contrary evidence could ever persuade him to reconsider his theological commitments. In other words, he will continue to believe as he does even if there are good reasons to think his beliefs are wrong and in need of revision.Craig in saying what he does, is not arguing that it is not logically possible that he is wrong.
In effect, that seems to be exactly what he is arguing, since no amount of contrary evidence could ever persuade him to reconsider his theological commitments. In other words, he will continue to believe as he does even if there are good reasons to think his beliefs are wrong and in need of revision.
Seriously? You've never heard that?
Look up the eyewitness accounts in the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson. This is a fairly recent example of why eyewitness accounts aren't all that trustworthy.
It does, however, have everything to do with Craig's level of intellectual honesty. How can one approach such questions honestly if one is not willing to accept even the mere possibility of error in one's own thinking?Maybe.
But this has nothing to do with strict logical possibility.
It does, however, have everything to do with Craig's level of intellectual honesty. How can one approach such questions honestly if one is not willing to accept even the mere possibility of error in one's own thinking?
What strawman? He has specifically stated that if he found himself in a situation where the evidence turned against his religious convictions, he would still remain committed to them regardless. The question bears repeating: how can one approach these matters honestly if one isn't willing to accept the possibility that one could be wrong? Another question worth repeating: given that you now accept the possibility that you could be wrong, I presume you repudiate Craig's line of reasoning as intellectually dishonest?I think you are strawmanning.
Why not just email him and ask him whether or not he thinks it is logically possible for him to be wrong about his beliefs.
I am persuaded he would tell you just what I have told you.
What strawman? He has specifically stated that if he found himself in a situation where the evidence turned against his religious convictions, he would still remain committed to them regardless. The question bears repeating: how can one approach these matters honestly if one isn't willing to accept the possibility that one could be wrong? Another question worth repeating: given that you now accept the possibility that you could be wrong, I presume you repudiate Craig's line of reasoning as intellectually dishonest?
You'll have to elaborate further. Either you accept that you could be wrong about your theological commitments or you don't. Thus far you have indicated that you accept that possibility and that you would be willing to revise those commitments if presented with sufficient reasons to do so (1).You're not getting it.
A person can believe both that it is logically possible that they could be wrong about belief X and at the same hold belief X to be properly basic.
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?