• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Interesting series of interviews

CrabCake

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
1,925
Reaction score
694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
I ran into this while reading The New York Times. It's a series of interviews of Philosophers regarding faith. None of this will be new to anyone familiar with Philosophy of Religion, but it's interesting to see the discussion brought to a popular publication for an amateur audience. It will, perhaps, be more interesting to read the comments (which I haven't gotten around to).

The first in the series is an interview of Alvin Plantinga where the irrationality of atheism is explored:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/is-atheism-irrational/
 

William Rea

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2010
Messages
8,949
Reaction score
2,231
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
I ran into this while reading The New York Times. It's a series of interviews of Philosophers regarding faith. None of this will be new to anyone familiar with Philosophy of Religion, but it's interesting to see the discussion brought to a popular publication for an amateur audience. It will, perhaps, be more interesting to read the comments (which I haven't gotten around to).

The first in the series is an interview of Alvin Plantinga where the irrationality of atheism is explored:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/is-atheism-irrational/

Seriously, if that's the best Plantinga can come up with then this series is a big yawn.
 

zyzygy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2014
Messages
43,804
Reaction score
8,666
Location
Flanders.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Seriously, if that's the best Plantinga can come up with then this series is a big yawn.

It was full of nonsense like this:

A.P.:" I should make clear first that I don’t think arguments are needed for rational belief in God. In this regard belief in God is like belief in other minds, or belief in the past. Belief in God is grounded in experience, or in the sensus divinitatis, John Calvin’s term for an inborn inclination to form beliefs about God in a wide variety of circumstances.

Nevertheless, I think there are a large number — maybe a couple of dozen — of pretty good theistic arguments. None is conclusive, but each, or at any rate the whole bunch taken together, is about as strong as philosophical arguments ordinarily get"


The past exists, minds exist therefore god? No.
 

CrabCake

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
1,925
Reaction score
694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
It was full of nonsense like this:

A.P.:" I should make clear first that I don’t think arguments are needed for rational belief in God. In this regard belief in God is like belief in other minds, or belief in the past. Belief in God is grounded in experience, or in the sensus divinitatis, John Calvin’s term for an inborn inclination to form beliefs about God in a wide variety of circumstances.

Nevertheless, I think there are a large number — maybe a couple of dozen — of pretty good theistic arguments. None is conclusive, but each, or at any rate the whole bunch taken together, is about as strong as philosophical arguments ordinarily get"


The past exists, minds exist therefore god? No.

You are failing to grasp his argument. He's trying to explain Reformed Epistemology to a lay audience. The full argument has to do with foundationalism as a response to the regression problem (Munchausen's Trilemma) and the idea that belief in God can be properly basic.

Reformed Epistemology is an expansion of classical foundationalism. It has nothing to do with the past existing and the mind existing, those were merely examples of other properly basic beliefs according to epistemic foundationalism (both classical and of the Reformed Epistemology variant).
 
Last edited:

zyzygy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2014
Messages
43,804
Reaction score
8,666
Location
Flanders.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You are failing to grasp his argument. He's trying to explain Reformed Epistemology to a lay audience. The full argument has to do with foundationalism as a response to the regression problem (Munchausen's Trilemma) and the idea that belief in God can be properly basic.

Reformed Epistemology is an expansion of classical foundationalism. It has nothing to do with the past existing and the mind existing, those were merely examples of other properly basic beliefs according to epistemic foundationalism (both classical and of the Reformed Epistemology variant).

Couch it how you will, we are still discussing an imaginary being.
 

RAMOSS

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
62,262
Reaction score
26,691
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I ran into this while reading The New York Times. It's a series of interviews of Philosophers regarding faith. None of this will be new to anyone familiar with Philosophy of Religion, but it's interesting to see the discussion brought to a popular publication for an amateur audience. It will, perhaps, be more interesting to read the comments (which I haven't gotten around to).

The first in the series is an interview of Alvin Plantinga where the irrationality of atheism is explored:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/is-atheism-irrational/


Of course, most atheists don't take Plantinga very seriously either, due to the fact a lot of the pseudo-intellectual philosophical arguments are totally irrational.

His arguments in that article are quite weak, full of poor analogies, and chock full of bad arguments. It also ends up being a variation of the 'shifting of burden of proof'. I don't see why so many Christians are so enamored of Plantinga , because his arguments and concepts are just so poorly thought out.

I mean the 'no longer need the moon to account for lunacy' is a pretty poor analogy. It's a bad analogy, bad logic and pretty poor rationalizing. Some of it boils down to the logical argument of 'shifting the burden of proof', other 'argument from ignorance', and when it comes to representing atheists and atheism, it is 'painting with too broad a brush'.

I find it ironic that so many logical flaws are being used to address the questions if atheists are irrational. It makes the whole article look like the psychological technique known as projection.
 
Last edited:

Dragonfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
25,733
Reaction score
14,362
Location
East Coast - USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
I ran into this while reading....

I just want to say that I clicked on this thread for no other reason than I think your screen name is AWESOME.

crab-cakes-300x243.jpg


Carry on....
 

zyzygy

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2014
Messages
43,804
Reaction score
8,666
Location
Flanders.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You are failing to grasp his argument. He's trying to explain Reformed Epistemology to a lay audience. The full argument has to do with foundationalism as a response to the regression problem (Munchausen's Trilemma) and the idea that belief in God can be properly basic.

Reformed Epistemology is an expansion of classical foundationalism. It has nothing to do with the past existing and the mind existing, those were merely examples of other properly basic beliefs according to epistemic foundationalism (both classical and of the Reformed Epistemology variant).

Well Googled!
 

CrabCake

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
1,925
Reaction score
694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
Of course, most atheists don't take Plantinga very seriously either, due to the fact a lot of the pseudo-intellectual philosophical arguments are totally irrational.

His arguments in that article are quite weak, full of poor analogies, and chock full of bad arguments. It also ends up being a variation of the 'shifting of burden of proof'. I don't see why so many Christians are so enamored of Plantinga , because his arguments and concepts are just so poorly thought out.

I mean the 'no longer need the moon to account for lunacy' is a pretty poor analogy. It's a bad analogy, bad logic and pretty poor rationalizing. Some of it boils down to the logical argument of 'shifting the burden of proof', other 'argument from ignorance', and when it comes to representing atheists and atheism, it is 'painting with too broad a brush'.

I find it ironic that so many logical flaws are being used to address the questions if atheists are irrational. It makes the whole article look like the psychological technique known as projection.

It's a series of articles. So, if you don't like that one, read on, there's more from other philosophers in the series, including from atheists.
 
Last edited:

CrabCake

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
1,925
Reaction score
694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
I just want to say that I clicked on this thread for no other reason than I think your screen name is AWESOME.

crab-cakes-300x243.jpg


Carry on....

I had been looking for a good avatar image and hadn't found one until now. That one is perfect, thanks.
 

CrabCake

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
1,925
Reaction score
694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
Actually, I was revisiting these articles and just realized it's not at all obvious how to get to all of them from a link of just the first one. So, here's a link to the whole section with all of the articles in the series:
philosophers on religion - Opinionator - NYTimes.com


The second article is "Arguments Against God". That might help some of the atheists here who disapproved of the first article see the series in a better light. Then again, the philosopher in this case also admits that belief in God does not imply someone is irrational or ignorant, so maybe that won't satisfy the atheists around here either.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom