Evidentialism again

by proplog2 0 Replies latest jw friends

  • proplog2
    proplog2

    I hate to repost this but I will keep trying til I can access the thread.

    Here is an arguelog dealing with Duns Evidentialism Post.

    DUNS: As a Christian I avoid arguments from natural theology. I am
    not in a relationship with a force or an abstract superlative
    entity devised by human adroitness. God has given me and all
    others who love him more than enough evidence of his existence.

    PROPLOG: I too would agree that looking for evidence of God in
    nature is pointless. If God is a living person then he ought to be
    able to talk to humans in a way that humans would know that he is
    God or at least some kind of superior being. So far such an
    extraordinary revelation has not occurred.

    DUNS: Everything, even what you call "scientific proof" is a
    matter of faith.

    PROPLOG: Suppose a man claimed that Aristotle is alive today and
    that Mars is inhabited by fairies? Would it be reasonable for him
    to retort when asked for evidence in support of these claims "Well,
    what evidence do you have that the sun is going to come up
    tomorrow"? Common-sense beliefs, e.g. "the sun will come up
    tomorrow" are much more rationally supported than beliefs for which
    we have no evidence. Common-sense beliefs and belief in God are
    therefore not comparable. In our everyday lives we act upon
    assumptions which we cannot prove to be true. But we still are able
    to decide what to do on the basis of what is most probably true.

    DUNS: Let me quote Chesterton: "In so far as religion is gone,
    reason is going. For they are both of the same primary and
    authoritative kind. They are both methods of proof which cannot
    themselves be proved"

    PROPLOG: Consider trying to walk off the observation deck of the
    Empire State Building. We could have "faith" that we will fall and
    be killed or we could have "faith" that we will have an enjoyable
    walk on air. Faith can decide nothing in this situation. Yet we
    do have good reasons for NOT walking off the edge of a building.
    You, Duns, are arguing that SINCE we have to rely on a degree of
    faith in our everyday lives THEREFORE faith in ANYTHING is somehow
    justified- including belief in the existence of GOD. The fact
    remains that we do not have GOOD reasons for believing in fairies,
    unicorns or God. Faith or not, proof or not - we still have to
    decide on the basis of whether there are good reasons available for
    our beliefs.

    DUNS: But "reasons" are not "proof".

    PROPLOG: Whether or not good reasons are "proofs", they will have
    to do until proofs come along.

    DUNS: It remains that at best both common-sense claims and
    theistic claims are based on assumptions.
    PROPLOG: There is one difference. Theistic claims are based
    MERELY on assumption whereas common-sense beliefs are based on
    assumption PRECEDED by OBSERVATION. That is not just a difference
    in degree. That is a difference in kind.
    Chesterton was correct up to a certain point. He is correct in
    placing reason over religion. Common-sense beliefs are more
    fundamental than theistic beliefs. Showing that religious
    assumptions are wrong does not automatically signal the end of all
    common-sense beliefs. For example you must hold the common-sense
    belief that there exist things other than yourself if you are to
    believe that there is a God. You must believe that what is true in
    the past will continue to be true if you are to believe, from one
    second to the next that God continues to exist. If common-sense
    beliefs are unjustified, then theistic beliefs are doubly
    unjustified since they rest on common-sense beliefs.

    DUNS: ?????????

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit