tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31835720.post4402799769995797955..comments2023-05-20T07:46:10.187-07:00Comments on ex-apologist: Beilby on the Variability-of-Belief Problem for Plantinga's Reformed Epistemologyexapologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09915579495149582531noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31835720.post-67473336005656596322010-02-17T22:44:52.057-08:002010-02-17T22:44:52.057-08:00mpg:
I saw the post over there, but haven't ha...mpg:<br />I saw the post over there, but haven't had a chance to read it. Sounds interesting, though!<br /><br />Joshua:<br />I suspect lack of perfect conditions is granted in Beilby's argument. I think the worry is supposed to be that the typical believer's faith isn't just less than maximal, but relatively weak and wavering.[1] But since Plantinga ties degree of warrant to degree of firmness, the beliefs of such Christians have little by way of warrant (at least not in virtue of the IIHS as depicted in the extended A/C model), in which case the relevant epistemic mini-environments for such believers is unfavorable wrt the IIHS (assuming other factors have been ruled out). <br />-----------------------<br />[1] Thus, epistemologist and Christian Keith DeRose: <br /><br />“I, however, have not been blessed with Plantinga faith. I believe that I have been blessed enough to have had experiences that are in some ways like those Plantinga describes, but for me, the most I have received directly from the Holy Spirit have been gentle nudges toward belief, certainly nothing even approaching the firm and certain conviction of which Plantinga speaks. And if the people I’ve talked to are to be believed — and they are — there are many who would be thrilled to receive faith as Plantinga describes it, but who have not, despite Plantinga’s claim that faith — presumably as he defines it, as a firm and certain conviction — “is given to anyone who is willing to accept it” ("Are Christian Beliefs Properly Basic?" APA Eastern talk, 1998. Available <a href="http://pantheon.yale.edu/~kd47/basic.htm" rel="nofollow">here</a>.exapologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09915579495149582531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31835720.post-43076761914525608062010-02-17T09:57:44.912-08:002010-02-17T09:57:44.912-08:00If there are noetic effects of sin which merely we...If there are noetic effects of sin which merely weaken Christian belief, why is this sufficient to render the epistemic environment un-congenial? In read Plantinga, I have never taken it that a congenial epistemic environment has to be a perfectly congenial epistemic environment, any more than the other criteria must be instantiated perfectly.JDBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12642092698398859527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31835720.post-45019422939901939402010-02-17T07:15:04.459-08:002010-02-17T07:15:04.459-08:00Hi Ex
I wonder if you have read Plantinga's r...Hi Ex<br /><br />I wonder if you have read Plantinga's reply to Kim's pairing problem for substance dualism? It was discussed on Prosblogion recently. I was wondering if you think Plantinga's reply. In short he states that a theist has no problem of pairing immaterial souls with material bodies, since they think God can cause space and time by logical necessity, God pairs the immaterial soul to the material body, by logical necessity, (I am not confident I have summarised this well). Many theistic philosophers seem convinced of this, but it smells to me, but I'm not sure why. <br /><br />Just wondering what your thoughts are, if you have any, on this argument. <br /><br />mpgmpghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00445199879510273357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31835720.post-69947148809279404892010-02-16T10:34:57.856-08:002010-02-16T10:34:57.856-08:00Hi Reasonably Aaron,
He wouldn't quite go so ...Hi Reasonably Aaron,<br /><br />He wouldn't quite go so far as to say he knows that his Christian belief IS formed by properly functioning cognitive faculties, etc., etc. He's an externalist about warrant, and so he only argues for the weaker claim that IF his Christian belief arises from properly functioning faculties, etc., etc., THEN this belief is warranted.<br /><br />It's natural to think that this sort of claim is of no help if one can't establish that the belief IS produced properly, but on externalist theories of warrant, one can know without knowing THAT one knows. For on such epistemological theories (which are popular among non-theist epistemologists as well, btw), If the belief is produced by a reliable process, then one is warranted in believing it; if not, not.<br /><br />About the ESP point: yep, you got it. You're raising a variant of what's known as 'The Great Pumpkin Objection' to Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology. Plantinga has replies to it, but they're, well.... I leave it to the reader to decide their merits. <br /><br />Best,<br />EAexapologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09915579495149582531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31835720.post-50730314059130117712010-02-16T01:55:14.288-08:002010-02-16T01:55:14.288-08:00Hi exapologist,
I have a question or two...
Would...Hi exapologist,<br /><br />I have a question or two...<br />Would I be correct in saying that Plantinga argues that belief in God is warranted because (in part) it originates from a properly functioning cognitive faculty vis-a-vis the Sensus Divinitatis (SD)?<br /><br />Does this beg the question about his belief in the existence of the SD? Is his belief in the SD warranted based on his criteria of warrant? <br /><br />Personally I would say that his belief in the existence of the SD is not caused by either properly functioning cognitive faculties nor faculties aimed at truth. I am wondering if he has covered such an objection before.<br /><br />Would this style of warrant-cum-knowledge argument suggest that those who believe they have ESP (and the cognitive faculties associated therein) would also have a warranted belief even if we could not establish such phenomena were real or detectable (by ESP apologetics)?<br /><br />- AaronReasonably Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13017978019081969374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31835720.post-43804680293665490052010-02-14T11:44:48.101-08:002010-02-14T11:44:48.101-08:00Jim,
What do you mean it's a caricature? Chri...Jim,<br /><br />What do you mean it's a caricature? Christianity teaches that God sacrificed His only Son in order to make atonement for our sins. It wasn't just death that God was after it was blood. I see no need for such a thing. My God doesn't do things like that. When I do something wrong I just ask for forgiveness and She forgives me. The more my cognitive faculties function properly the more bizzare it seems.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18342042981695750691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31835720.post-7265785385658177012010-02-14T10:57:29.138-08:002010-02-14T10:57:29.138-08:00Hi, Jim.
Thanks very much for commenting! I have ...Hi, Jim.<br /><br />Thanks very much for commenting! I have a post I'm preparing on your proposed "fix" for Plantinga's account, but I wanted to contact you about it to make sure I understand what you're suggesting before doing so. In any case, while you're here, would you mind if I did so?<br /><br />Best,<br />EAexapologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09915579495149582531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31835720.post-55074790612911842542010-02-14T07:15:48.056-08:002010-02-14T07:15:48.056-08:00@Cole. Your comments are based on a caricature of ...@Cole. Your comments are based on a caricature of the Christian view of atonement.<br /><br />@ exapologist. You’ve given a very fair explication of my argument. I think that this exposes a flaw in Plantinga’s argument. But I also said that this flaw might be fixed if Plantinga explicates the role of human freedom in relation to his model. He didn’t want to do so because it would require to model to ‘take sides’ theologically. But I think he needs to do so. An Arminian view of human freedom and resistable grace will go a long way to explaining the problematic data<br /><br />Jim BeilbyUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08107351294689013675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31835720.post-14438059894362108272010-02-13T22:44:39.771-08:002010-02-13T22:44:39.771-08:00My belief in God satisfies all the conditions for ...My belief in God satisfies all the conditions for warrant yet I don't hold to the Christian god. In fact, my properly functioning cognitive faculties tell me there is somthing crazy about a god that requires innocent blood in order to forgive someone for wrongdoing. My God doesn't require blood in order to forgive. "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin"<br /><br />I just ask for forgiveness and my God forgives. He doesn't require blood in order to forgive.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18342042981695750691noreply@blogger.com