enarchay wrote: Quote from: icepickthe real question is this: how does one argue that theism is properly basic? if it were, why isnt it universally accepted? i dont understand that?Properly basic beliefs don't have to be universally accepted to be properly basic. Belief in other minds is properly basic, but look at solipists! Also, there are way more theists than non-theists.
the real question is this: how does one argue that theism is properly basic? if it were, why isnt it universally accepted? i dont understand that?
In that case, how would you identify something as "properly basic." What is the criteria for determining what is properly basic?
I don't think using an example about morality is a very good idea when discussing properly basic beliefs.
There reason senseless murder is evil is because that is what we define it to be.
Further defined, "bad" is subjective, but might be defined as something that has a negative impact with relation to that Being which is considering the action- and further down into the rabbit hole of trying to define morality.
Anyhow, anyone who says "I know in my heart" isn't giving a rational reason.
Luke wrote: Well, there's a lot that could be said here, but for starters, I'll say this. This atheist is missing the point. It's not that we choose to believe that other people have minds or that there is a past. Rather, we know these things. But how do we know them? Classical foundationalism notoriously cannot supply the correct account here. Rather, we believe these things basically and these beliefs are fully warranted. The theist then comes along and asks why theistic belief cannot also be warrantedly believed in a basic way. If our theistic beliefs are the results of cognitive faculties functioning properly (or the product of reliable belief-producing mechanisms or...fill in your preferred account here), then theistic belief can be fully warranted without needing in addition some further doxastic grounding.