6
7

Referred to /r/badphilosophy because I pointed out that if you have studied philosophy, and you still believe in god, then that is a failure of your education. (self.DebateAnAtheist)

gregbard が 投稿

Not everyone here is a student of philosophy, but if you did study philosophy, you know that the whole point is to learn the valid ways of analyzing claims, and generally thinking the right way about things. You study logic, epistemology, ethics, etcetera.

So I pointed out that Plantagina, and Craig are pretty lame philosophers, but charitably I did not go so far as to claim that they weren't actual philosophers. At least I though I was being charitable.

I am pretty sure that skepticism, and reason are the limiting valid methodology of philosophy. If you abandon logic, and reason, and skepticism, then you no longer are doing philosophy. Philosophy is not just any idea out there. There are academic and scholarly standards. Unfortunately, we are not at the point politically to where we are able to throw the religious believers out of the field. I see this as more of a political issue than as an intellectual issue.

Link

全 70 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]ChocolateHead 21ポイント22ポイント  (38子コメント)

Referred to /r/badphilosophy because I pointed out that if you have studied philosophy, and you still believe in god, then that is a failure of your education.

Ugh. Where to start. First of all, "philosophy" is not one thing that always agrees with itself. There have been thousands of philosophers throughout history and many of them disagree on very many basic things. And I doubt you have studied all philosophy. In fact, I doubt you have studied any philosophy at all in an academic context because if you did you wouldn't be so sloppy in your language.

I am pretty sure that skepticism, and reason are the limiting valid methodology of philosophy. If you abandon logic, and reason, and skepticism, then you no longer are doing philosophy.

Skepticism is just one mode of thought in philosophy. It is not all of philosophy. That's like saying "if you don't follow Platonism you're not doing philosophy." You're wrong.

That said, "philosophy" has never proven that God doesn't exist. Whether or not God exists is unprovable or disprovable (which is why it is always a hot controversy). Also, "logic" has nothing to do with God's existence, that's a question of reason.

[–]gregbard[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (26子コメント)

not one thing that always agrees with itself

Agreed. There are all kinds of views that I don't agree with, that were arrived at with valid philosophical methodology. I was charitable and recognized Plantagina, and Craig as philosophers, not pseudophilosophers.

I doubt you have studied any philosophy at all in an academic context because if you did you wouldn't be so sloppy in your language.

Author of hundreds of articles, and in almost every area of philosophy: aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, logic, social and political philosophy, Eastern philosophy, Analytic philosophy, Continental philosophy, ancient philosophy, medieval philosophy, modern philosophy, contemporary philosophy. So that was a failed presumption on your part.

Skepticism is just one mode of thought in philosophy

Please let me correct you on this. There is philosophical skepticism, and methodological skepticism. There are legitimate philosophers who reject philosophical skepticism, as it claims we can't have any knowledge, a pretty strong claim. However in the case of methodological skepticism, if you reject it as a method of philosophy, I would say you are no longer doing philosophy. I would put in on par with rejecting the scientific method in the case of scientists.

Also, "logic" has nothing to do with God's existence, that's a question of reason.

Yes, logic is concerned with the relationship between two or more statements, and their subject matter is left as a matter for whatever art or science is responsible for that subject matter. So strictly speaking, you are correct. However, logic, in general is supposed to follow and be limited by reason.

My original claim stands. If you are doing religion, you are not doing philosophy any more. There have to be standards, as philosophy is supposed to be a rigorous academic and scholarly exercise. Not every photocopied page with tiny little print handed out on the corner of Haight and Ashbury is philosophy.

[–]Shitgenstein 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

What the hell is "doing religion"? You mean theology? Or just having religious beliefs? I mean, what you're saying is pretty stupid either way but the former is funnier than the latter.

Author on medieval philosophy and yet "doing religion" is not doing philosophy. Do you not see why people doubt your knowledge on the subject?

[–]HakimPhilo 10ポイント11ポイント  (18子コメント)

Author of hundreds of articles, and in almost every area of philosophy: aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, logic, social and political philosophy, Eastern philosophy, Analytic philosophy, Continental philosophy, ancient philosophy, medieval philosophy, modern philosophy, contemporary philosophy. So that was a failed presumption on your part.

I'm highly skeptical of that.

Edit: After some research, it has been clear to me that you actually authored 153 of articles and co-authored 2739.

[–]sit_up_straight 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

you actually authored 153 of articles and co-authored 2739.

Not sure if joking or I'm missing something on that page

[–]HakimPhilo 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

You thought I wasn't joking?!

[–]sit_up_straight 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Looked totally serious till I read the link

[–]HakimPhilo 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

lol, BTW he deleted his account as well as his puppet accounts.

[–]gregbard[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (13子コメント)

Author of hundreds, co-author of thousands. Skepticism is good though. I would encourage you in that.

[–]HakimPhilo 2ポイント3ポイント  (12子コメント)

Asserting something isn't a sufficient proof. You need to provide empirical evidence to back up your claim.

[–]gregbard[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (10子コメント)

I feel it is distasteful to throw credentials around. I only refuted your claim since you brought it up. Is this somehow informative to the actual debate for you?

[–]Capercaillie 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

Writing Wikipedia articles counts as "credentials?"

[–]ChocolateHead 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

I feel it is distasteful to throw credentials around.

So you think its not distasteful to brag about how you authored hundreds of articles in every area of philosophy, but it IS distasteful to actually provide citations to those articles to prove you're not lying.

Ok, dude. Whatever you say.

[–]HakimPhilo 4ポイント5ポイント  (6子コメント)

I only refuted your claim since you brought it up.

You didn't. You never provided empirical evidence, only asserting again and again your claim.

[–]HakimPhiloIsAMoron -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Lol! That's a funny statement coming from a theist!

[–]ChocolateHead 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

I was charitable and recognized Plantagina, and Lane as philosophers, not pseudophilosophers.

You are such an arrogant douche I can't even believe I'm engaging you.

Yes, logic is concerned with the relationship between two of more statements, and their subject matter is left as a matter for whatever art or science is responsible for that subject matter. So strictly speaking, you are correct. However, logic, in general is supposed to follow and be limited by reason.

Who said "logic in general is supposed to follow and be limited by reason"?

However in the case of methodological skepticism, if you reject it as a method of philosophy, I would say you are no longer doing philosophy.

I don't think you know what methodological skepticism even is. First of all, "methodological skepticism" means "doubting" things that you can't logically deduce, not rejecting them outright. Secondly, Cartesian skepticism (which is what you are referring to if you have any idea what you are talking about) has been disproven and rejected so many times it's not even funny. Suffice to say that it's unworkable and impossible to rely solely on deductive reasoning and even Descartes didn't stay true to his position (not to mention he ended up relying on God).

[–]gregbard[S] -5ポイント-4ポイント  (3子コメント)

Gee, a personal attack. Who would have ever guessed that it would be followed by such brilliant statements?

Who said that logic was supposed to follow reason? Good question since it is so obvious that it hardly needs to be stated overtly. If it doesn't follow reason, it isn't reasonable. I get the sense that being reasonable isn't a priority for you.

has been disproven and rejected so many times

<facepalm> Listen buddy, no one is saying that we need to rely solely on deductive reasoning, and you've made too many other wrong presumptions to school you sufficiently.

[–]ChocolateHead 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Who said that logic was supposed to follow reason? Good question since it is so obvious that it hardly needs to be stated overtly. If it doesn't follow reason, it isn't reasonable.

Logic and reason are 2 different things. You are muddling the waters by combining them. An argument can be "logical" while still being irrational. You act like you're some big hot shot philosopher but you can't even get your concepts straight.

Listen buddy, no one is saying that we need to rely solely on deductive reasoning

that's what methodological skepticism is

[–]TotesMessenger 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

[–]ArgonTorr 1ポイント2ポイント  (10子コメント)

CMIIW, but isn't "logic" merely the science of analyzing arguments, so if someone is providing an argument for God's existence they are by definition engaging in that science?

[–]gregbard[S] 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

The content of an argument isn't the focus of logic, only the form of the argument. The content is the focus of whatever art or science is responsible for that subject matter.

But logic is not alone on these issues. If you also employ the valid methodology of epistemology you can no longer be intellectually irresponsible and still be "doing philosophy."

[–]ArgonTorr 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh I agree but as I pointed out in my top-level post their ideas are invalid and therefore, by definition unsound, without even considering the premises.

[–]ChocolateHead 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

CMIIW, but isn't "logic" merely the science of analyzing arguments,

No. "Logic" is the process of reasoning from premises to conclusions. For example, if I say "Socrates is a man" and "all men are mortal" then it logically follows that "Socrates is a mortal." Now, your reasoning can be "logical" but not "rational." So if I say "Socrates is a lizard" and "all lizard are green" so "Socrates is green" what I would be saying would be LOGICALLY correct but it wouldn't be true. What you are thinking of is RATIONALITY. Rationality means whether the thing you are saying has a reason behind it. So the statement is "Socrates is green" may be a logical outcome but not rational because there is no reason to think that Socrates is a lizard.

As a theist, it is amazing to me how much atheists criticize religious people for being "illogical" but they have no fucking idea what logic is.

[–]ArgonTorr 7ポイント8ポイント  (4子コメント)

The opening lines of A Concise Introduction to Logic by Hurley:

Basic Concepts

1.1 - Arguments, Premises, and Conclusions

Logic may be defined as the science that evaluates arguments. All of us encounter arguments in our day-to-day experience. We read them in books and newspapers, hear them on television, and formulate them when communicating with friends and associates. The aim of logic is to develop a system of methods and principles that we may use as criteria for evaluating the arguments of others and as guides in constructing arguments of our own. Among the benefits to be expected from the study of logic is an increase in confidence that we are making sense when we criticize the arguments of others and when we advance arguments of our own.

An argument, as it occurs in logic, is a group of statements, one or more of which (the premises) are claimed to provide support for, or reasons to believe, one of the others (the conclusion). All arguments may be placed in one of two basic groups: those in which the premises really do support the conclusion and those in which they do not, even though they are claimed to. The former are said to be good arguments (at least to that extent), the latter bad arguments. The purpose of logic, as the science that evaluates arguments, is thus to develop methods and techniques that allow us to distinguish good arguments from bad.

Edit: I think that you're restricting your definition to 'syllogisms' maybe, or 'deductive arguments'? Edit 2: Included more of the quote, bolding to highlight the relevant statement (but context is always nice).

[–]WastedP0tential 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Obsessively pressing every argument into the form of a syllogism seems to be a staple of theistic philosophy. I reckon that's because of its Aristotelian roots. This overuse of syllogisms has been rightly criticized by modern philosophers if you ask me.

[–]ArgonTorr 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I do the same as an atheist. It's nice to phrase it that way because it makes a less compelling argument suddenly seem more compelling.

[–]ChocolateHead -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Your definition of "logic" doesn't contradict what I just said. Logic is the science of examining the validity of arguments given certain premises. Logic doesn't evaluate the truth or falsity of the actual premises - that task belongs to rationality. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

[–]ArgonTorr 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Your definition of "logic" doesn't contradict what I just said.

I asked if it was the science of analyzing arguments, you said no, then Hurley agrees with me, and apparently that isn't a contradiction...? Regardless, logic has 'something to do with' potential proofs of the existence of God, because if you're reasoning from observations by definition you're engaging in using logic.

Logic is the science of examining the validity of arguments given certain premises. Logic doesn't evaluate the truth or falsity of the actual premises - that task belongs to rationality.

So then you agree that logic 'has something to do with God's existence' since you're reasoning from premises (about the world) to conclusions (about God's existence). So then the statement that "Also, "logic" has nothing to do with God's existence, that's a question of reason." is false by your own admission.

You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Thanks for keeping it civil. Also, this statement is false as can be seen above.

[–]completely-ineffable 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Taking that definition of logic, anytime anyone anywhere makes an argument, they are engaging in logic. The problem with this is that it's absurdly broad. We want to differentiate what the study of logic with the application of logic. This is similar to the situation with the mathematics. There is a sense in which someone balancing their checkbook is engaging in the science (read: Wissenschaft) of mathematics. But they are not engaging in mathematics in the same sense someone like Grothendieck did. They are applying things in mathematics to solve the problem of balancing their checkbook. They are not studying mathematics itself. We wouldn't say that the person balancing their checkbook is a mathematician, that they are discovering mathematical knowledge.

Someone engaging in the science of logic is investigating the properties of certain formal deductive systems, is analyzing concepts like truth, provability, and logical inference, or some other thing like that. Someone making an argument about an unrelated domain isn't doing that.

[–]ArgonTorr 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

My understanding of his/her argument, to use your analogy, is "balancing a checkbook has nothing to do with mathematics", which is false, as one needs mathematics to balance a checkbook and therefore has something to do with math, even if not engaged in the study or advancement of it. I took nothing to mean 'not a thing', as in 'both study and application are things, this has neither of them', which is of course absurd and is why I took issue with it (and seemed substantiated by /u/Chocolatehead's followup).

[–]Prom_STar 10ポイント11ポイント  (17子コメント)

By Lane I assume you mean William Lane Craig? Look, putting him and Alvin Plantinga together is at best unfair. Yes both men are Christians and both have written apologetics, but Plantinga is actually a decent philosopher. He's made important contributions to the field. He does apologetics in addition to being a professional philosopher while apologetics is all Craig has.

Philosophy is a broad tent. Skepticism is certainly under there, but one need not be a skeptic to be a philosopher. One need not be an atheist either. True, today the majority of philosophers are, but as a fan of logic you will surely know that just because a lot of people believe something, that doesn't make it true.

In any case, the question of theism is nowhere near as settled as evolution (which you claimed in the linked thread). Things really don't get settled to that extent in philosophy. Somebody comes up with a good argument to question an idea, it gets questioned no matter how long it's seemed a settled issue (see, for example, Gettier and justified true belief).

[–]brojangles 6ポイント7ポイント  (4子コメント)

Ive never seen Plantinga make an argument for God that I could not destroy effortlessly.

In any case, the question of theism is nowhere near as settled as evolution.

Unless and until there is even a shred of evidence for gods, then there is no question even to ponder.

[–]Prom_STar 9ポイント10ポイント  (3子コメント)

Ive never seen Plantinga make an argument for God that I could not destroy effortlessly.

I never said his argument were indefeasible. I simply said Plantinga shouldn't be lumped with WLC. Whatever the merits of Plantinga's theistic arguments, the man isn't a crank (a label that fits WLC quite well).

Unless and until there is even a shred of evidence for gods, then there is no question even to ponder.

Like you I agree that the arguments in favor of God ultimately don't succeed, else I wouldn't be an atheist, but are you really saying there's no discussion to be had, that the arguments in favor of theism are so hopelessly bankrupt it isn't worth wasting our time even to consider them? Guys like Plantinga clearly put a lot of thought into their arguments. Seems reasonable to me to see what they have to say. Even if I come out of the conversation believing the same thing I did when I went in, there's value in having had the debate.

[–]brojangles 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

God is a gratuitous hypothesis. It's not just that it lacks evidence, but that it lacks necessity. It isn't required to explain anything. Why bother discussing a superfluous hypothesis? What reason is there to even ask the question? Do we ask about the possibility that gremlins cause plane crashes?

Plantinga started out with his God beliefs, he didn't reason his way to them. He just tries to defend what he already believed a priori.

[–]Prom_STar 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

God is a gratuitous hypothesis.

I don't disagree. I think epistemic superfluousness is one of the strongest general arguments for atheism. I still don't see why it's not worth having the debate, though.

We have that debate about God and not about gremlins because there aren't billions of people believing in gremlin caused disasters. Lots of people think God exists and that, it seems to me, means it's worthwhile trying to figure out if they're right or not. Again, I think they are wrong but I certainly don't expect them to take me on faith. I much prefer we have the debate and decide our beliefs based upon the merits of the arguments.

[–]frontseatdog 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I still don't see why it's not worth having the debate, though.

I have to agree with brojangles here, but maybe it's a matter of how someone views debate. From my perspective, when it's impossible for a claimant to produce any evidence for something they're claiming has existence beyond being an idea, there is nothing to base a debate upon. So it never becomes a question of whether the debate is worth having, because there is no debate to evaluate.

People can and do go through the motions of debate on the issue. But calling it a debate of the question of a god's existence is like calling the act of sitting at a table and pantomiming eating... 'having a meal'.

[–]lapapinton 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

apologetics is all Craig has.

What about his two monographs on philosophy of time? Plenty of people seem to be engaging with his work in this area.

[–]gregbard[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (10子コメント)

one need not be a skeptic to be a philosopher

There is philosophical skepticism, and methodological skepticism. There are legitimate philosophers who reject philosophical skepticism, as it claims we can't have any knowledge, a pretty strong claim. However in the case of methodological skepticism, if you reject it as a method of philosophy, I would say you are no longer doing philosophy. I would put in on par with rejecting the scientific method in the case of scientists.

One need not be an atheist either

I would say this is true if they could keep their superstitions to themselves. If they are factoring it into academic publications, then I would say that is crossing the line, and no longer philosophy. That's a strong position, but I stand by it.

majority of philosophers

It's not a coincidence. When you learn the proper and valid methods of thinking, that is a natural result.

nowhere near as settled as evolution (which you claimed in the linked thread)

My claim about about how settled it is, is in reference to the intellectual validity of its settlement, not the political environment of the field. Intellectually, it is settled completely in my view. I'm not responsible for the political environment. It's like claiming there is a controversy over climate change. If you can get your numbers up for that side, then you have people saying it isn't settled. That doesn't mean it isn't settled.

[–]Prom_STar 3ポイント4ポイント  (8子コメント)

I wouldn't compare the question of theism to that of climate change because, again, philosophy and science are very different disciplines and they employ different methodologies. The question in science is "what does the evidence say and what do our best theories indicate?" In the case of climate change, the evidence is massive and the theories have proved their credentials and there is very little, if any, space left for reasonable doubt.

That is not a situation that happens in philosophy. Philosophy is at base about arguments and thus no idea is safe from question. It's at best waiting for an argument to be formulated against it. Again I encourage you to read up on Gettier and how he called into question an idea that been arguably "settled" for thousands of years.

You seem to be alleging that Plantinga and other contemporary theistic philosophers hold their beliefs because they haven't actually evaluated them critically, that they do not subject their faith to philosophical scrutiny. To me this suggests you haven't actually read them. I don't think Plantinga's argument for religion as a properly basic belief works, but I'd be a fool to suggest that it isn't something he clearly put a lot of thought into. He made a reasoned argument and he defended it. That is to say, he did philosophy. I don't think the fact that Plantinga and I disagree on the conclusion says anything as such about the merits of our critical thinking.

[–]gregbard[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

I think it is fair to compare philosophy and science, in that they are both scholarly academic fields with standards for what is and is not valid. Science is concerned with scientific questions and demands physical evidence, and philosophy is concerned with philosophical questions, and it is demanded that their answers are grounded in self-evident principles.

I don't think it is correct to think of philosophy (as many people do) as fuzzy, inexact, speculative, equivocal and hopeless. Some areas of philosophy are that way, but less and less so. Rigorous scholars and academic philosophers reject a lot of claims as pseudophilosophy using valid methodology including skepticism and reason.

Plantagina and others may very well have subjected their beliefs to valid methodology and came out the other side still accepting them. That is why I charitably still consider them legitimate philosophers. But they are in the minority. However, the fact that they came out the other side still believing strongly supports my claim that it is a failure of education.

What I am seeing is that the popular disrespect for philosophy based on the common misconception that it is inexact, etcetera, is being used to claim that all kinds of things that are not philosophy are. This isn't the direction we need to be going in.

[–]Prom_STar 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

Philosophy is a rigorous discipline that, like many other academic pursuits, comes down to arguments and counterarguments made in academic publications and through processes like peer review.

I disagree that atheism is a necessary an inescapable conclusion of philosophy. Plantinga's arguments are not fuzzy, inexact, speculative, equivocal or hopeless. I think they ultimately fail but not for want of rigor. Yes about three-quarters of philosophers are atheists, though if you limit your search to just philosophers of religion (those one would expect to be the experts on the subject) theists are actually the majority. Perhaps this simply means that theists are more likely to focus on philosophy of religion than atheists. Perhaps it means the people who study the arguments in depth come to different conclusions than those who do so more generally. In any case, it's intellectual arrogance to suggest that any philosopher who is serious about the pursuit of philosophy must be an atheist.

[–]gregbard[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

Plantinga's arguments are not fuzzy, inexact, speculative, equivocal or hopeless

I wasn't characterizing Plantagina with that point. I was referring to a wrong popular perception of philosophy that has lead to people thinking all kinds of nonsense is valid philosophy.

intellectual arrogance

The thing about arrogance is that you are only arrogant if you feel you are entitled to something which you are not due. I feel a great deal of respect for the rigorous and scholarly philosophers properly reject a lot of bunk as pseudophilosophy. If others see that as arrogance, well the people who are the rightful object of that kind of rejection ALWAYS think it is the claimant who is arrogant. Every homeopath thinks Western medicine is arrogant, etcetera. I'm sorry but I have to stand by it.

[–]Prom_STar 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

Again, you're claiming that all theistic philosophers are guilty of pseudophilosophy. That is the claim I call arrogant. You're saying the arguments for atheism are so overwhelming that only intellectual dishonesty allows one to reject them.

[–]gregbard[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (3子コメント)

...and Western medicine is so arrogant to reject all that homopathy too. I'm over here just crying about being called arrogant. Boo hoo.

You want to know something? The arguments for atheism are so overwhelming that only intellectual dishonesty allows one to reject them!

[–]Prom_STar 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

...and Western medicine is so arrogant to reject all that homopathy too. I'm over here just crying about being called arrogant. Boo hoo.

I hope you'll forgive me if I leave your bad analogy unaddressed.

You want to know something? The arguments for atheism are so overwhelming that only intellectual dishonesty allows one to reject them!

Which arguments specifically are these that resolve this question once and for all then? I'd love to hear them.

[–]Proverbs313 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

There is philosophical skepticism, and methodological skepticism. There are legitimate philosophers who reject philosophical skepticism, as it claims we can't have any knowledge, a pretty strong claim.

You're thinking of those like Carneades. The Academic Skeptics claim knowledge is impossible while the Pyrrhonian Skeptics merely suspend judgment on whether knowledge is possible or not. Pyrrhonian Skeptics make no claims as to anything being true or false and hold no beliefs.

However in the case of methodological skepticism, if you reject it as a method of philosophy, I would say you are no longer doing philosophy.

I think this might be going too far. I think most of us agree that methodological skepticism is an appropriate mood or attitude towards knowledge claims however just because someone is a dogmatist that doesn't mean they're not doing philosophy. Perhaps they have an argument as to why certain claims are unquestionable or they appeal to a kind of common sense philosophy where they don't get all skeptical and such etc. Just because one doesn't share your attitude about an activity that doesn't mean they are no longer engaging in the same activity as you.

If they are factoring it into academic publications, then I would say that is crossing the line, and no longer philosophy.

Philosophy of Religion is a legitimate field of academic study. Please read this article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Philosophy of Religion

It's not a coincidence. When you learn the proper and valid methods of thinking, that is a natural result.

On the contrary. I suggest you read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn. Its publication was a landmark event in the history, philosophy, and sociology of scientific knowledge and triggered an ongoing worldwide assessment and reaction in—and beyond—those scholarly communities. Kuhn challenged the then prevailing view of progress in "normal science." Normal scientific progress was viewed as "development-by-accumulation" of accepted facts and theories. Kuhn argued for an episodic model in which periods of such conceptual continuity in normal science were interrupted by periods of revolutionary science. The discovery of "anomalies" during revolutions in science leads to new paradigms. New paradigms then ask new questions of old data, move beyond the mere "puzzle-solving" of the previous paradigm, change the rules of the game and the "map" directing new research.

Intellectually, it is settled completely in my view.

That doesn't sound like a very skeptical attitude.

"Excluding naive realists, most scientists are fallibilists in Peirce's sense: scientific theories are hypothetical and always corrigible in principle. They may happen to be true, but we cannot know this for certain in any particular case."

Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-progress/#ReaIns

[–]ArgonTorr 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

I personally feel that it might not be a 'failure of their education'. What I have noticed from looking at conspiracy theories, religion, pseudoscience, paranormal, and the like is that it seems like there is a real corner case in human reasoning for an idea that is far more unfalsifiable than it's alternative, and which is supported only on assumption and sufficiency. Considering religion gets to people before logic and reason do, the it seems as though there is not a great deal of surprise when the assumption wins out. So I don't think it's a failure of education, because the education has a really uphill battle to fight against this logical train wreck.

Plantiga's obviously fallacious major arguments make him a terrible philosopher, I agree. But again, his arguments are reasonable to him because they are supported by assumption and sufficiency. He obviously assumes God exists and then everything affirms God's existence ("If God exists X; X; Therefore God exists").

Dr. Craig's arguments are a little less obviously fallacious: when he says "God is the best explanation for X" he is assuming that "best" means simultaneously "most logically compelling" and "most completely accounts for the data", which are two different things, because his argument reduces to "God accounts for X" (sufficiency - "If God exists then he accounts for X") and "naturalism does not" (also sufficiency - "If God accounts for X then no alternative exists"), and, since both affirm the consequent his argument is invalid, but in a weird way it seems like if you affirm the consequent twice in a row really fast no one will notice (That's why Craig is wrong in one sentence lol).

[–]gregbard[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

We mostly agree, only I do take it a little further. However, my claim about the demarcation of philosophy and religion is a strong, not universally accepted claim which I stand by.

To respond to your point, if religion "gets to" people, then that is a matter for psychology and social science. That's not philosophy.

I think my claim concerning Plantagina and Craig was quite reasonable and charitable, as I accepted that there are other respected philosophers who accept Plantagina and Craig as philosophers, and that is sufficient for me.

[–]pyrojackelope 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

because I pointed out that if you have studied philosophy, and you still believe in god, then that is a failure of your education.

The one philosophy class I took many years ago was pretty bad. The professor was great, but every other response to questions was, "the book of mormon this..." and "the book of mormon that..." I'd like to think it was a tie between me and the professor for who rolled their eyes the most.

[–]websnarf 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

First of all, the r/bad*/ subreddits are not to be taken as any kind of relevant authorities on anything, especially not *, whatever * is (* = history is particularly horrible ).

As far as philosophy teaching you to analyze claims, I wonder if you are giving the topic of philosophy a little too much credit.

I am pretty sure that skepticism, and reason are the limiting valid methodology of philosophy.

Skepticism and reasoning are methodologies of analysis, but I don't know why you would associate them in particular to philosophy. They are more properly associated with science.

If you abandon logic, and reason, and skepticism, then you no longer are doing philosophy

Well see, that's what I mean. If you abandon logic, reason, and skepticism, then you are no longer doing science. Philosophy, on the other hand, has a long history of being practiced with none of those attributes, even up until modern times.

There are academic and scholarly standards.

Yes, but who do you think are occupying those academies? You know that theology is an entire field that is "studied" at many universities, right? I really think you are confusing scientific standards (which are reasonable, useful, and the key to valid cognitive discourse), with academic standards (whatever will allow universities to perpetuate the kinds of disciplines they pay their faculty to teach; obviously a somewhat lower standard: I think it's limited to "don't plagiarize, and hide your logical fallacies so that they are not so obvious".)

Unfortunately, we are not at the point politically to where we are able to throw the religious believers out of the field. I see this as more of a political issue than as an intellectual issue.

This seems non sequitur to your earlier points. If logic, reason, and skepticism were somehow within the foundations of philosophy, religion would have been purged from the entire field a long time ago. Nevertheless, religion continues to be given all sorts of consideration by philosophers. Ergo, philosophers have clearly included "other" modes of thinking, besides analytically valid ways of thinking (they have "embraced a larger view of the force; not just the dogmatic view of the jedi").

[–]TheSharpRunner 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

As an atheist who read a Plantinga book (Where the Conflict Really Lies), I don't agree with all of his viewpoints, but I certainly do not see how you couldn't call him a philosopher.

[–]RealAlec 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I totally agree with you. I studied philosophy in college, and continue to enjoy reading essays on epistemology, philosophy of mind, and religion today. I've been regularly disappointed with some of the more popular kind of reasoning in /r/philosophy recently. A lot of people seem awfully willing to conclude that its perfectly reasonable to not accept rationality as persuasive. Though such arguments are presented thoughtfully, they seem to always boil down to:

(1) we can know some things without using reason (e.g. our emotional states)

(2) therefore a religious person is totally within their rights to believe anything they want

I can't speak for the philosophical community at large, but this argument seems patently ridiculous to me. Indeed, I refute both of these points. I have no doubt my professors would have balked at such an argument too.

[–]paladin_ranger 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'd much rather be a scientist than a philosopher.

[–]Crazy__Eddie 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Who cares. I found myself there once. It's just a bunch of whiner nerds being stuck up.

[–]gaylordfocker08 -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

i stopped reading when you misspelled Plantinga's name. clearly you have no idea about the resurgence of theists in philosophy academia.

[–]ChocolateHead 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I reported this thread because the OP is posting under multiple accounts and clearly gaming the votes with his multiple accounts.

LOL

[–]Capercaillie 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Apparently somebody took action.

[–]heavenlytoaster 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Majority of philosophers believe in moral realism, if you disagree study up.

Majority of philosophers are atheist, if you agree study up.

Reddit, where shitty inconsistent philosophy reigns supreme.