« Rod Dreher on Leftism | Main | Saturday Night at the Oldies: October Jazz »

Saturday, October 14, 2023

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Bill, there is always such richness, and it is a gift gratefully received, thank you!

You are very welcome, EG.

How do you feel about a modified presuppositionalism that argues:

1) We finite cognizers in pursuit of our cognitional goals must presuppose the existence of truths

2) It is more reasonable to presuppose the existence of the biblical God than any other entity (ie a monad) or system of thought (ie process theology, world soul, non-theistic evolution).

Bill,

This is a substantive post on an interesting and important topic. I’ve read through it (including the Excursus) twice, and I agree with you across the board. I agree that theism and atheism are rationally acceptable given our current state. There are reasonable arguments on both sides and no knock-down, debate ending, utterly conclusive argument on either side. I also concur with your distinction between a compelling argument and a well-reasoned, good argument.

One thought that came to mind is that the quotation from Sidgwick raises questions about epistemic peer disagreement. But that’s a separate topic which is difficult in its own right and which doesn’t influence the strength of your case.

You're mostly right. I would suggest another way to look at truth - a purely physical way - but that might take us too far afield. Nevertheless, the world presents us with a "Necker Cube" of premises. We choose the ones we choose. We are, therefore, not driven by reason; rather, we drive reason. Because we cannot use reason to decide our premises (we actually use perception), we actually live by faith. A coincidental correspondence to Christianity? That depends on your premises and how you choose to see the Necker cube.

As for Christian presuppositionalism, it something that is technically right yet completely misguided. God is known by perception, by experience, and you cannot argue someone into having an experience.

Elliot,

Glad we agree. Now I need to convince Tony Flood.

>>One thought that came to mind is that the quotation from Sidgwick raises questions about epistemic peer disagreement. But that’s a separate topic which is difficult in its own right and which doesn’t influence the strength of your case.<<

As I see it the case for my view that on all or most substantive issues in philosophy there are good (but no rationally coercive) arguments on both sides rests on the fact of disagreement among competent practitioners. So as I see it, this issue is not separate, but more on this later.

By the way, Brian Bosse send his regards and said he would like to talk with you in person again sometime.

Bill, I'd be interested in your discussion of peer disagreement. What should competent peers in philosophy do? Conciliate? Remain steadfast? A tertium quid?

Brian and I had a nice phone conversation about open theism and Molinism a while back. I look forward to hanging w/ you gents again sometime. I haven't been back to So Cal, but when I do, I'll try to stop in AZ.

Elliot,

I'll try to say something about disagreement tomorrow.

It would be great to see you again in AZ.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 10/2008

Categories

Categories

February 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29    
Blog powered by Typepad