Does this guy admit his beliefs are irrational then?

He might be a fideist as well as a Liberal. It's not uncommon for Christian philosophers to criticize arguments for god that they think fail.

(March 24, 2015 at 7:04 pm)Pizz-atheist Wrote: He might be a fideist as well as a Liberal. It's not uncommon for Christian philosophers to criticize arguments for god that they think fail.

I could never understand the rationale of fideism. I get Pascal's wager if you can narrow down your options to two particular choices and there is one that you perceive has many benefits...but that is not a possible outcome for someone who is objective and honest in their examination of the thousands of other options.

That's an extreme version of fideism. Weaker version would just say that it' okay to believe something even if you don't have good evidence for it so long as there is no good evidence against it. It's going beyond evidence and not counter to it. Really you could have fideistic nontheists. I'm sympathetic towards such views; however, we as humans have a bad habit of getting emotionally attached to the first view we jump to and fight to not let go; therefore, the value of suspending judgement can't be ignored.

(March 24, 2015 at 7:04 pm)Pizz-atheist Wrote: He might be a fideist as well as a Liberal. It's not uncommon for Christian philosophers to criticize arguments for god that they think fail.

Indeed. My first thoughts were of Immanuel Kant, who very famously argued against many of the traditional arguments for the existence of God, while still being a Christian.

I think the mistake that many people make is confusing the conclusion of an argument with the validity of an argument. Anyone who has studied logic (and was not a total failure at it) understands that the two concepts are quite separate and distinct, but many people don't, and so they imagine that rejecting a specific argument means that they are rejecting the conclusion of the argument, which is not necessarily the case.

That is especially the case if the argument is invalid, or premises poorly undefined, and the premises are not properly defended.

(March 24, 2015 at 11:07 pm)Pizz-atheist Wrote: That's an extreme version of fideism. Weaker version would just say that it' okay to believe something even if you don't have good evidence for it so long as there is no good evidence against it. It's going beyond evidence and not counter to it. Really you could have fideistic nontheists. I'm sympathetic towards such views; however, we as humans have a bad habit of getting emotionally attached to the first view we jump to and fight to not let go; therefore, the value of suspending judgement can't be ignored.

You make me think of William Kingdon Clifford:

http://ajburger.homestead.com/ethics.html

It isn't okay to believe things without evidence. It is, in fact, the very definition of "prejudice," judging things before one has the evidence regarding the issue.

(March 25, 2015 at 8:00 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: Indeed. My first thoughts were of Immanuel Kant, who very famously argued against many of the traditional arguments for the existence of God, while still being a Christian.

He was? I was always under the impression that he was a deist...

(March 25, 2015 at 9:53 pm)Nestor Wrote:

(March 25, 2015 at 8:00 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: Indeed. My first thoughts were of Immanuel Kant, who very famously argued against many of the traditional arguments for the existence of God, while still being a Christian.

He was? I was always under the impression that he was a deist...

I see from the wikipedia article that there is some disagreement on his views on religion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant

My assessment of his views is based on reading various of his writings in which he mentions god and writes about religion.

Pay particular attention to this bit of the wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Ka..._of_Reason

I am not very sympathetic to the view that he was not a Christian. Many Christians say that many other types of Christians who differ from themselves are not really Christians, so I don't take such claims too seriously.

If you are really interested in the question, I recommend that you start reading some Kant, though I don't expect the question to interest you enough to go to that much trouble (and with Kant, reading him is trouble, though not as much as some of the later German philosophers whose writings raise gobbledygook to extraordinary levels).

(March 25, 2015 at 10:22 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: I see from the wikipedia article that there is some disagreement on his views on religion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant

My assessment of his views is based on reading various of his writings in which he mentions god and writes about religion.

Pay particular attention to this bit of the wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Ka..._of_Reason

I am not very sympathetic to the view that he was not a Christian. Many Christians say that many other types of Christians who differ from themselves are not really Christians, so I don't take such claims too seriously.

If you are really interested in the question, I recommend that you start reading some Kant, though I don't expect the question to interest you enough to go to that much trouble (and with Kant, reading him is trouble, though not as much as some of the later German philosophers whose writings raise gobbledygook to extraordinary levels).

Thanks. I own and have read his Critique of Pure Reason. In the future I plan on reading the Critique of Practical Reason as I think that delves into his moral philosophy some, which I am interested in. Would you have any recommendations?