tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4639421058590597640.post4183970980654164463..comments2023-04-13T02:45:50.515-07:00Comments on The Ends of Thought: What Should We Learn From Arguments for Atheism?Roman Altshulerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06570099479055051251noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4639421058590597640.post-49387670321809994102010-08-19T14:29:29.634-07:002010-08-19T14:29:29.634-07:00I am "retreating" from simply attacking ...I am "retreating" from simply attacking Gutting's premises to the position that they do not make sense from the perspective of an atheist. So you are asking, I take it, why I would bother to do that instead of simply attacking his premises and leaving it at that?<br /><br />First, because attacking his premises is easy. There are lots of basic arguments that do that. And the discussions never go anywhere. I am interested less in continuing an endless argument with theists and more in trying to understand why such argument always look so very strange to both sides.<br /><br />Second, I am trying to understand something about theist arguments (and about faith, more generally), namely, I want to try to make sense of why so many seemingly reasonable people believe things that don't make much sense to me on the basis of premises that don't make much sense to me. I find that puzzling. Also intriguing. I think trying to make sense of what theists are saying may be a very different project from trying to make sense of it just enough to mount a refutation.<br /><br />So yes, there is a descriptive element involved. I am trying to figure out the nature of the disagreement rather than simply contribute to the disagreement.<br /><br />[As for Bayesian calculations--I'm afraid that, unlike my co-blogger, I don't have a clue when it comes to Bayes.]Roman Altshulerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06570099479055051251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4639421058590597640.post-74615999576770623782010-08-19T04:32:56.906-07:002010-08-19T04:32:56.906-07:00Which things do you believe without sufficient evi...Which things do you believe without sufficient evidence? Why not simply assign those things lower confidence scores in your Bayesian calculations? <br /><br />To be clear, I think this is a great post. But it seems strange that you address the warrantedness of some of Guttings premises but retreat to descriptive epistemology in the final paragraph. It looks like an endorsement.<br /><br />Treating theistic priors as a warrant for accepting otherwise unwarranted premises is, indeed, to side with Platinga and the pluralists.anotherpanaceahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08170804573665745672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4639421058590597640.post-64690487697316617272010-08-18T19:00:22.822-07:002010-08-18T19:00:22.822-07:00I found that to be a really good read, and the las...I found that to be a really good read, and the last paragraph in particular I felt did a really good job explaining why atheist-theist arguments are so common, charged, and unproductive.Palanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4639421058590597640.post-24205662920725014012010-08-18T08:46:41.984-07:002010-08-18T08:46:41.984-07:00I'm not sure how this relates to what I wrote....I'm not sure how this relates to what I wrote. I certainly don't think it is wrong to believe anything on insufficient evidence; like everyone else, I do it all the time. And I haven't said anything about warrant or whether we ought to be pluralists about it. My suggestion is only that theists and atheists DO have different standards of evidence, not that they ought to (a question I did not address).Roman Altshulerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06570099479055051251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4639421058590597640.post-36425497268249647422010-08-18T06:51:45.833-07:002010-08-18T06:51:45.833-07:00“It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to...“It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence.”<br /><br />I take it this is why Platinga's work on epistemic warrantedness, which you seem to be endorsing, is so important theists.<br /><br />Ought we to be pluralists about warrant? You make this seem like a merely rhetorical question, especially in your account of God's explanatory power.anotherpanaceahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08170804573665745672noreply@blogger.com