Properly Basic Beliefs

[TheoNewstoss]

Why assume a theistic conceptual framework to begin with?

Because a naturalistic conceptual framework is self-refuting.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Because a naturalistic conceptual framework is self-refuting.

In what sense?

 

[TheoNewstoss]

In what sense?

Evolution doesn't favor an accurate perception of reality, for starters.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Evolution doesn't favor an accurate perception of reality, for starters.

And in what way does assuming theism ameliorate that situation?

 

[TheoNewstoss]

And in what way does assuming theism ameliorate that?

First, are you acknowledging that what I said was true?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

First, are you acknowledging that what I said was true?

No, it's contentious.

 

[TheoNewstoss]

No, it's contentious.

On a theistic conceptual framework, knowledge is not purely the result of biological processes.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

On a theistic conceptual framework, knowledge is not purely the result of biological processes.

Okay. But that doesn't answer the question.

 

[TheoNewstoss]

Okay. But that doesn't answer the question.

It absolutely does answer the question. Let me recap our dialogue thus far:

You: Why assume a theistic conceptual framework to begin with?
Me: Evolution doesn't favor an accurate perception of reality, for starters.
You: And in what way does assuming theism ameliorate that situation?
Me: On a theistic conceptual framework, knowledge is not purely the result of biological processes.

How have I not answered your question?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It absolutely does answer the question. Let me recap our dialogue thus far:

You: Why assume a theistic conceptual framework to begin with?
Me: Evolution doesn't favor an accurate perception of reality, for starters.
You: And in what way does assuming theism ameliorate that situation?
Me: On a theistic conceptual framework, knowledge is not purely the result of biological processes.

How have I not answered your question?

It doesn't follow. So what if knowledge isn't purely the result of biological processes on a theistic conceptual framework? Why should we assume that framework to begin with? Because our perception is fallible? How does that follow?

 

[TheoNewstoss]

It doesn't follow. So what if knowledge isn't purely the result of biological processes on a theistic conceptual framework? Why should we assume that framework to begin with? Because we are our perception is fallible? How does that follow?

We should assume a non-failing paradigm. That does follow. Why would you choose as a self-refuting conceptual framework by default? That's just stupid.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

We should assume a non-failing paradigm. That does follow. Why would you choose as a self-refuting conceptual framework by default? That's just stupid.

Why should we assume that a theistic conceptual framework is a non-failing paradigm?

 

[TheoNewstoss]

Why should we assume that a theistic conceptual framework is a non-failing paradigm?

You shouldn't. You should assess the paradigm to see whether or not it's internally coherent.

If you were mopping your floor and had a choice between two buckets, one with no holes in it and the other with holes in it, you obviously wouldn't choose the one with holes in it.

If they both had holes, you would go with the one that drained slower for sake of not making as big a mess.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You shouldn't. You should assess the paradigm to see whether or not it's internally coherent.

If you were mopping your floor and had a choice between two buckets, one with no holes in it and the other with holes in it, you obviously wouldn't choose the one with holes in it.

If they both had holes, you would go with the one that drained slower for sake of not making as big a mess.

Then there is no reason to adopt a theistic conceptual framework. Remember, that was my initial question: why should we adopt such a framework in the first place? You haven't given any reason to do so.

 

[elopez]

Your conceptual framework is your collection of beliefs. It itself is not a belief.

Right, and a foundationalist framework starts with basic beliefs, and other beliefs are then built upon this basic belief. All other non-basic beliefs therefore recieve justification from the basic belief.

If you believe in God, then your conceptual framework has to be modeled after that properly basic belief. It serves as your foundation.

The foundation is the basic belief, and the superstructure the non-basic beliefs. In the case you're purporting, "God exists" is the basic belief. A non-basic belief in this case, as an example, could be that "the universe is not eternal."

God does not need to make sense in light of other facts or propositions.

Ah, yet the basic belief (God exists) must be justified by virtue of something. The question then turns to what is that something? In foundationalism, justification is transferred from basic to non-basic beliefs, yet how that transformation occurs must also be accounted for. Those are but two problems for foundationalism to solve.

Not only that, but you would also have to show what a basic belief constitutes as for you to say "God exists" is one. I have seen others, perhaps even yourself, as wanting to attach notions of infallibility to basic beliefs. Yet as it really is, we are not entirely within an epistemic privilege to say such beliefs are infallible, especially when it comes to that of "God exists."

All facts and propositions need to make sense in light of God.

It may be true that the belief in a finite universe is justified by a belief of God, but the bottom line is the belief of God is the root of the belief in a finite universe. "God exists", as you say, is the foundation. Now, the idea that belief of God is the foundation of other beliefs, and also the idea that God does not need to make sense in light of propositions, I am assuming, is not conflicting to you. It then seems unreasonable of you to make the assumption that

That is the opposite of coherentism.

when the same belief of a finite universe, according to coherentism, recieves it's justification from other beliefs in the epistemic vicinity of the belief "God exists."

 

[elopez]

Sounds like the Op is describing an a-priori statement or belief, one that is based on an epistemic justification that needs no experiential justification, i.e. obviously true, or true by definition.

Not so much actually. What I am inquring of is proper basic beliefs, which is the idea there exists some beliefs which need no further justification of any other belief, or that there is no further justification for believing p on a proposition q. A priori justification is the source of knowledge by means of reason alone, as you say, without being dependant on experience. A basic belief, however, may be found in an experience, such as perceptual, but cannot find justification in a further belief or perhaps even a further proposition.

 

[elopez]

Hi elopez,

I lean more toward coherentism, at least as far as the Bible is concerned. However, from what I've studied, there are limits (and problems) inherent in all epistemological frameworks.

Hey, hows it going man?

So would you say the belief of God is not a proper basic belief? It depends on other beliefs, or further propositions?

Can you explain the structure of your beliefs of the Bible according to a coherentist view?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not so much actually. What I am inquring of is proper basic beliefs, which is the idea there exists some beliefs which need no further justification of any other belief, or that there is no further justification for believing p on a proposition q. A priori justification is the source of knowledge by means of reason alone, as you say, without being dependant on experience. A basic belief, however, may be found in an experience, such as perceptual, but cannot find justification in a further belief or perhaps even a further proposition.

OK, thanks for the clarification. I guess Descartes gave us a starter, with 'cogito ergo sum'.

 

[elopez]

OK, thanks for the clarification. I guess Descartes gave us a starter, with 'cogito ergo sum'.

Indeed, I think Descartes is a sure advocate for foundationalism. Our existence being self-evident to us does not establish the existence of another thinker, though (does it?), which seems I must say I know you exist based on some other proposition or belief. That also suggests basic beliefs, if exist at all, must be open to being fallible as well.

 

[Chriliman]

Then there is no reason to adopt a theistic conceptual framework. Remember, that was my initial question: why should we adopt such a framework in the first place? You haven't given any reason to do so.

The simple answer is that your reasoning leads to nothing, his reasoning leads to something.

If my reasoning leads to nothing, I have nowhere to go except back to where my reasoning began(which is what you have done above). If my reasoning leads to something, I can then push forward and ask the very difficult questions like "Has my reasoning been wrong this entire time?" (You don't seem to be asking yourself this question, thus the problem with your reasoning is clear, it leads nowhere and you refuse to admit it)

Just some more of that wisdom we spoke about earlier Take it or leave it, its your choice.