Hell

[Edwardo Piet]

Since when is it a principle of foundationalism that basic beliefs can not be "scrutinized"?

I'm not saying that they can't be. I'm saying that since you take such beliefs such as belief in God to be "basic" that demonstrates that you haven't scrutinized them enough.

[Faith No More]

The understanding that God is a "foundation" comes from the notion that God is a necessary being and the Creator. Given these things, everything that exists either does so because of God's nature, character or (at least ultimately) His will. Very, very broadly, I think the categories we cannot help but think in (those of being, logic, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics...) can be shown to have a direct correspondence of some sort (which may be fleshed out in different ways) to God's attributes, who God is and God's purpose for Creation as taught by the Christian Scriptures.

I understand the belief that the cosmos needs a creator but then who created him? If God has always existed, thus not needing a creator, why does the cosmos need a creator? The cosmos could very well be cyclical, destroying and creating itself over and over, creating what we percieve as space and time. Just like a circle it has no begining or end. But then who created the circle? When answering that with God, it is assumed that the circle must need a creator but God doesn't. Why is that? I am considerably stumped at understanding why God doesn't necessitate a cause but the cosmos does.

As for how I come to the conclusion that the Christian metaphysic is correct, I have said before that I do not reason to God but from God. I accept the Christian epistemological account of belief in God as basic (as made possible by God's self-revelation) and from that basic belief that the Christian metaphysical account of the existence and nature of the world (contingent beings, laws of logic, knowledge, morality, beauty, etc.) is true. I would reject the Christian metaphysic if it were demonstrated either that the Christian metaphysic is inconsistent or incoherent, or if a non-Christian metaphysic adequately explained the existence and nature of the world.

What do you mean by Christian metaphysic?

[Matthew]

My claim was that it were powerful inductive reasons for beliveing this is the case, so I should formally add the word 'probably'. I specifically stated that it is not deductive.

I find it difficult to see how one could formulate a good inductive argument for your strong claim about the scientific method.

Premise: Application of the scientific method has led to great technological advances.
Premise: ? <Fill in the blank>
...
Conclusion: The scientific method is (probably) the best and only reliable method for evaluating truth claims.

How would you fill in the blank here to make it a good argument?

It makes a difference to a formal philosophical structure to an argument, but not to the way we practically run our lives. As we only have a limited time on this earth we kind of have to make up our minds on what we are actually going to believe. I imagine (but do not know) that you operate your life as if that statement I made was also true.

If you mean what I think you mean, then no, I don't. We do not have any control over the content of our beliefs - we cannot "make up our minds" and decide to stop believing or start believing something. What we do have control over is whether we actively take up our intellectual responsibility to reflect on them and test their rationality.

Would you argue that Jesus really can solely be relied upon to heal you or you loved ones in a real medical emergency? Or that praying for your lamps to come on will be the best way to light up your house at night? The truth claims evalauated by science have led to the advances we see. There are no truth claims (that I'm aware of) made by theism that are not highly dubious. So lets 'walk the talk' here

I agree with you that the scientific method is a reliable method for evaluating some truth claims (those within the domain of science). What I do not accept is that the scientific method is the best and only reliable method for evaluating all truth claims. I can see why you would think that theological truth claims are dubious if you think that the scientific method has such universal applicability. The problem is that it doesn't - there are many, many fields of study in which the scientific method would simply be inappropriate. (One of those fields is epistemology, into which you entered with your claim about the scientific method.) I don't make the theological claim that we should rely on God to do everything for us - on the Christian understanding, God has made us responsible for ourselves and our environment.

---

I wouldn't say we are 'obligated' to be rational, plenty of people aren't rational and we all have our irrational moments.

The point is that we should be rational, not that everyone is. The same as how everyone should be moral, but not everyone is. How is it possible to make claims about rationality if there is no universal normative standard of rationality? If you think theists (for example) are irrational for believing as they do, then on what basis (i.e. based on what standard) do you say that they are irrational?

Maybe intellectual honesty is a better way to put it, that we should strive to be as unbiased as possible, and be open to all the available evidence. Reasoning 'from' God, assuming that God is a given, immediately changes your interpretation of everything else, and you become less open to explanations that exclude God.

In order to reason, you must reason from something. You cannot have a premise-less argument, and there is no neutral ground from which we can assess rationality. In order to argue that it is irrational to believe X, we must base that argument on Y. But then what about Y? Is Y rational? And so it continues (this is called the problem of "regress"). The question is which beliefs we should reason from (if it is possible to reason at all).

[qutoe]The laws of logic may not be visible or tangible, but I would say that they are indeed measurable. [/quote]How exactly do you go about measuring a law of logic?

But even if they weren't, that doesn't mean that something else that is apparently 'self-evident' (ie. God) automatically exists. And obviously not everyone finds God to be self-evident; the existence of laws of logic can just as easily be accommodated in an atheistic world view.

I wasn't arguing such. All I am doing is challenging your view that no belief about invisible, unmeasurable, intangible entities is rational.

I would be interested to hear your account of what exactly laws of logic and why they have the properties they do according to your worldview.

---

Since when is it a principle of foundationalism that basic beliefs can not be "scrutinized"?

I'm not saying that they can't be. I'm saying that since you take such beliefs such as belief in God to be "basic" that demonstrates that you haven't scrutinized them enough.

...and how does it demonstrate that?

---

I understand the belief that the cosmos needs a creator but then who created him? If God has always existed, thus not needing a creator, why does the cosmos need a creator? The cosmos could very well be cyclical, destroying and creating itself over and over, creating what we percieve as space and time. Just like a circle it has no begining or end. But then who created the circle? When answering that with God, it is assumed that the circle must need a creator but God doesn't. Why is that? I am considerably stumped at understanding why God doesn't necessitate a cause but the cosmos does.

I'm not quite sure what your questions have to do with my post. I wasn't arguing that the universe requires a Creator (though I believe it does); I was explaining why I come to the conclusion as a Christian that everything ultimately depends on Him in some way.

What do you mean by Christian metaphysic?

The Christian view of what exists and the nature of existent objects.

[Edwardo Piet]

...and how does it demonstrate that?

Belief in God has no valid argument to support it. If you scrutinized it enough you should recognize that.

[Matthew]

...and how does it demonstrate that?

Belief in God has no valid argument to support it. If you scrutinized it enough you should recognize that.

(I assume you mean a sound argument.) The fact that I take belief in God to be basic should tell you that I reject your assumption that a sound argument is necessary for rational belief. Arguing against basic beliefs by saying that you need an argument to support them is rather begging the epistemological question, now, isn't it?

[Edwardo Piet]

(I assume you mean a sound argument.)

Yes, technically a sound argument, as the premises for belief in God tend to be bogus whenever the argument is actually valid. But "valid" can also simply mean something like:

producing the desired result; effective: a valid antidote for gloom.

The fact that I take belief in God to be basic should tell you that I reject your assumption that a sound argument is necessary for rational belief.

So you consider an unsound belief in God to be rational? Why?

Arguing against basic beliefs by saying that you need an argument to support them is rather begging the epistemological question, now, isn't it?

My point is that the "basic belief" in God is an irrational belief because it has no rational argument to support it. I do not understand why you think any belief without a rational argument behind it can be a rational belief, maybe you can enlighten me.

[Matthew]

So you consider an unsound belief in God to be rational? Why?

What is an "unsound belief"? I know what an unsound argument is, but not an unsound belief.

My point is that the "basic belief" in God is an irrational belief because it has no rational argument to support it. I do not understand why you think any belief without a rational argument behind it can be a rational belief, maybe you can enlighten me.

Foundationalism just is (i.e. by definition) the view that a belief is rational if it is basic or supported by basic beliefs. That is why you are begging the question here. One of the problems with making supporting arguments a necessary condition for rational belief is the famous regress argument. Arguments require premises in order to be valid. But on your view, those premises also require arguments, and so it continues. What is your response to the regress argument?

[Edwardo Piet]

What is an "unsound belief"? I know what an unsound argument is, but not an unsound belief.

[unsound:] not solid or firm, as foundations.

I'm talking about a baseless belief. A belief that isn't supported by rational argument.

Foundationalism just is (i.e. by definition) the view that a belief is rational if it is basic or supported by basic beliefs. That is why you are begging the question here.

How is belief in God a basic belief?

One of the problems with making supporting arguments a necessary condition for rational belief is the famous regress argument.

Irrelevant. If you can't do it you can't do it. Because you can't support it doesn't mean you should pretend that you can have a rational belief without support.

Arguments require premises in order to be valid. But on your view, those premises also require arguments, and so it continues. What is your response to the regress argument?

My response is that any question of "Why do I know that X is true?" ultimately leads to the case that I can't know because any response I give either commits the Begging the Question Fallacy or the Circular Reasoning Fallacy.

An example: I don't know why I don't believe in God, because if I say I don't believe because I'm unconvinced or I am unaware of any evidence that is ultimately just a paraphrasing of saying "I don't believe because I don't believe" so it commits the Begging the Question Fallacy.

I define knowledge to be identical to the true awareness of something. Hence why when people say "I'm aware of that" they mean "I know that".

So, following from that definition of knowledge I consider it possible to know that something is true because it's possible to be aware of something. However, I am completely skeptical to knowing why anything is true, because we ultimately don't know why we are aware of anything, if we ask "Why?" enough times we ultimately don't know the answer.

Knowing that something is true is very different to knowing why something is true. I am not always skeptical about the former but I am always skeptical about the latter.

[Faith No More]

as a Christian[/i] that everything ultimately depends on Him in some way.

This is what you said in the previous post...

The understanding that God is a "foundation" comes from the notion that God is a necessary being and the Creator

I'm trying to understand why you feel that God is a necessary being and the creator?

[OnlyNatural]

The point is that we should be rational, not that everyone is. The same as how everyone should be moral, but not everyone is. How is it possible to make claims about rationality if there is no universal normative standard of rationality? If you think theists (for example) are irrational for believing as they do, then on what basis (i.e. based on what standard) do you say that they are irrational?

I don't think either morality or rationality has a universal standard that we can compare it to. Theists often insist that there are absolute standards of perfection, defined by God, but these concepts can only really be defined by their important elements. A core element of morality would be compassion and the desire to limit suffering, whereas a core element of rationality is that rational beliefs correspond most closely to the actual structure of reality, and are grounded in as much evidence as possible.

In order to reason, you must reason from something. You cannot have a premise-less argument, and there is no neutral ground from which we can assess rationality. In order to argue that it is irrational to believe X, we must base that argument on Y. But then what about Y? Is Y rational? And so it continues (this is called the problem of "regress"). The question is which beliefs we should reason from (if it is possible to reason at all).

I think DvF responded well to the regress question, so I won't go into it.

The point is that the basic belief of 'there is a God' is not necessary. Without this belief, you'd just be reasoning 'from' something else, if you say we must reason from something. Atheists can use their skills of reason just fine without an unnecessary and unsupported first assumption about reality. It's like, I could go around believing that the galaxy is being carried through space on the back of a giant tortoise, but without the evidence for it, what's the point in reasoning from this assumption?

How exactly do you go about measuring a law of logic?

I would be interested to hear your account of what exactly laws of logic and why they have the properties they do according to your worldview.

Well theoretically you could go out and interview a huge sample, and test how people use logic and reasoning to come to conclusions. Logic could also be used to make consistent predictions about things.

However, I see all this from a scientific perspective, because science is concerned with what actually exists (and unless God actually, objectively exists, not just in the minds of believers, then I see no point in worshiping him). I don't think I can go into any more detail about the laws of logic, though, I'll have to leave that up to those who are well-versed in philosophy. An atheist's definition would most likely be the same as mine.