icepick

  • **
  • 70 Posts
    • View Profile
An atheist response to properly basic beliefs
« Reply #15 on: May 30, 2009, 01:21:49 pm »
enarchay wrote:
Quote from: icepick
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?


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.


Hello enarchay,

   In that case, how would you identify something as "properly basic." What is the criteria for determining what is properly basic?

    This business of properly basic beliefs I think has something to do with William Craig's 5th "argument." But he never usually goes in depth on it...idk maybe you or someone else can make it more clear.

    Thanks!

1

Zach Blaesi

  • **
  • 365 Posts
    • View Profile
An atheist response to properly basic beliefs
« Reply #16 on: May 30, 2009, 04:42:48 pm »
In that case, how would you identify something as "properly basic." What is the criteria for determining what is properly basic?


Well, if Plantinga is right, classical foundationalism is unacceptable. However, Plantinga offers no new criteria for proper basicality. So, I'm not really sure.



2

George Barron

  • **
  • 41 Posts
    • View Profile
An atheist response to properly basic beliefs
« Reply #17 on: August 06, 2009, 08:27:41 pm »
I don't think using an example about morality is a very good idea when discussing properly basic beliefs.

Why not? I'm just asking, not challenging. I've read Warranted Christian Belief but its been a while and it was over my head. But why isn't the universally accepted existence of morality, in some form, relevant to how we form beliefs?

There reason senseless murder is evil is because that is what we define it to be.

I don't understand what you mean. Does this mean that all that anything is, is what we define it to be? Can we define anything in any way we chose and have warranted belief in that definition? Could we just as easily define senseless murder as good, or kind or romantic? You may be right that morality is not relevant to properly basic beliefs but I don't think this sense of what morality is makes it irrelevant.

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.

I think that's were you've really lost me and I think that is why the addition of the word 'senseless' is so important.  If you just said "murder" then you'd be right about that rabbit hole.  But murder, or killing, of another human being without reason is universally, as far as I know, considered inappropriate behavior, or wrong or bad. There is no rabbit hole. It is universally offensive. In that regard, it is a belief held by all, under proper circumstances, with properly functioning faculties.

Anyhow, anyone who says "I know in my heart" isn't giving a rational reason.

I don't think it was presented as such. I think that was just a way of saying it is a universally held belief.

Again, I'm not confronting, just trying to understand stuff that may be beyond my faculties.

3

Joseph Evensen

  • **
  • 527 Posts
    • View Profile
An atheist response to properly basic beliefs
« Reply #18 on: June 04, 2010, 02:27:14 pm »
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.

But, there are reasons to say we know such things as "other people have minds" or "there is a past".  I don't see any solid reasons that would put belief in God as a properly basic belief.

For example:
"Other people have minds"
1.  I am a human, and I have a mind.
2.  Other humans are similar to myself in all physical details (basically, such as they have a brain, eyes, etc.)
3.  Other humans behave as if they have minds.  (well most do, ha ha)
Or
"there is a past"
1.  I remember the past
2.  I can access evidences for the past

I think the real question is "Is what we perceive actually as we percieve it, and what reasons do we have to believe it is so".  The answer is, (and I believe Plantiga supports this, if I remember correctly) I trust my perceptions until I have good reason to doubt.

Where Plantiga would surely disagree with me (and he is MUCH smarter than I, but still, here we go) is that I believe there are good reasons to doubt the existence of God.  Such as:
Conflicting accounts of religion
Absence of God (lack of physical evidence)
Possible naturalistic explanations for existence, morality, etc.
I could go on, but I think my point has been made.


4

Alyosha

  • **
  • 34 Posts
    • View Profile
An atheist response to properly basic beliefs
« Reply #19 on: June 22, 2011, 09:04:18 am »
@tigerslip

I am currently studying philosophical skepticism and it is not as simple as you think. Problem of other minds for example:

1.  I am a human, and I have a mind.
>>> Well, you can assume this... just not to scare you from what have I read....

2.  Other humans are similar to myself in all physical details (basically, such as they have a brain, eyes, etc.)
>>> Here where they attack your argument, do you make this claim through:

a) Induction?
But, induction is problematic considering there is only one case, that is you. While there are 6 billions plus human (well skeptics can ask, how do I know that, so let says more human).

b) Inference to the best explanation?
But inference of the best explanation is bereft with trouble. For example, they can say that other explanation such as they are robots or the Matrix is also probable. Or they can destroy the tool of abductive reasoning also.

3.  Other humans behave as if they have minds.  (well most do, ha ha)


Premise (2) are denied. so conclusion not accepted.

I am still struggling to answer and seek answer... The answers are more muddled and difficult than I think...


5

dmwessel

  • *
  • 3 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: An atheist response to properly basic beliefs
« Reply #20 on: October 02, 2015, 07:44:23 am »
Hello, I am new to the forum and I have a particular interest in the subject of Occam's razor as it applies to the Bible, so I hope you do not mind me re-opening this topic.

"Daniel wrote: For years I've had a hunch that there is a natural complimentary, or logically counter-balancing, rule for Occam's Razor. I don't recall having ever run into such a rule in the literature, nor have I yet imagined what such a rule might be, so...

...does anyone have a candidate for such a rule?"


I believe I have found such a rule in the Bible, the premise of which is "synonymy, synonymous and repetition".
 
It's a bit too detailed to go into here but perhaps you will check out my my very brief papers at academia.edu where I post as an independent researcher (my bibliographies are weak because I cite only the Bible as my source):
https://independent.academia.edu/DawnWessel

Thank you and I would appreciate any comments.