What makes people irrational thinkers?

[LadyForCamus]

Hart makes the claim about physical reality being contingent multiple times, but thus far I haven’t come across any specific support for that assertion other than “something can’t come from nothing,” which is problematic for reasons i mentioned earlier. O
Also, there’s this:

“If it is one’s sordid fate to be an academic philosopher, one might even try to con- vince oneself that the question of existence is an inept or false query generated by the seductions of imprecise grammar, or one might simply adopt the analytic philosopher’s classic gesture of flinging one’s hands haplessly in the air and proclaiming that one simply finds the question entirely unintelligible. All of this, how- ever, is an abdication of the responsibility to think..”

On the contrary, that is a perfectly rational conclusion reached via intellectual honesty and humility regarding the limits of our own capabilities; the possibility that we simply don’t know, and may never know. This uncertainty seems profoundly uncomfortable for Hart as he mentions it as a reason to believe in the supernatural more than a few times in the first hundred pages. Uncomfortable and frustrating though it may be, the unknown does not give us intellectual license to simply make something up simply for the fact that it soothes our curiosity and agitation.

Is properly basic to consider physical reality non-contingent? I am okay with that but IMHO that also is an unsupported opinion. I wonder. How would you falsify this physicalist position?

I mean, it’s not any less supported than a non-contingent god. I think the pathway to falsifying the physicalist position is by demonstrating, or at the very least, soundly arguing for a possible alternative to existence. In order for physical reality to possibly be contingent there would have to have been an alternative state of affairs to existence that could have been instead. What is the alternative state of affairs to existence? Nothing? Nothing can’t be an alternative state. By its definition, nothing can’t be. The very notion is self-refuting. Hart talks about the infinite distance between being and non-being, as though either could potentially have been. I don’t see a way around this apparent logical paradox, but I’m open to ideas.

To be clear, I’m not asserting that physical reality exists necessarily (though it seems to me to be a rational metaphysical position) I’m only pointing out that Hart asserts that can’t be the case because his argument relies on that assumption being true, and so he’ll need to support it.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Is properly basic to consider physical reality non-contingent? I am okay with that but IMHO that also is an unsupported opinion. I wonder. How would you falsify this physicalist position?

I mean, it’s not any less supported than a non-contingent god. In order for physical reality to be contingent there would have to have been an alternative state of affairs to existence that could have been instead. What is the alternative state of affairs to existence? Nothing? Nothing can’t be an alternative state. By its definition, nothing can’t be. Hart talks about the infinite distance between being and non-being, as though either could potentially be. I don’t see a way around this apparent logical paradox, but I’m open to ideas.

True 

[Angrboda]

Is properly basic to consider physical reality non-contingent? I am okay with that but IMHO that also is an unsupported opinion.

That's not entirely true as there are scientific theories about how the universe can avoid the contingency problem. So while I think the contingency of the universe is an open question, it would be wrong to say that it isn't or can't be supported as being non-contingent. And I think the reason that contingency is so important to theists is that it leads to the intuitively appealing arguments that if the universe isn't necessary, then something else must be. That seems not much more than an appeal to ignorance as well as simply kicking the can down the road. Particularly as most theist answers to the contingency problem are little more than explaining it away with magic, which is no explanation at all. If the contingency issue can't be resolved by an appeal to orderly and predictable processes of some sort, then we really can't offer a rational explanation for the universe. But "a god" is not an orderly and predictable process, so god(s) as an answer is no better than "it just is" or "it just happened," which beyond not being intellectually satisfying, is basically vapid.

[Belacqua]

The elaborateness of an argument is not related to the truth of any of its premises, or its conclusion. Arguments can be elaborately fallacious. We’d have to examine these arguments in detail. 

Yes, this is certainly true.

I was addressing the claim that someone was begging the question. 

If that person is offering an argument for his position, he is not affirming the consequent. 

The quality of the argument is a separate issue. 

You'll see as you go through the book how much of an argument he offers. I don't recall right now, and don't have time to do the research. (Still have various hospital duties.)

A question which is likely to come up: do you know of any arguments as to why the physical universe is NOT contingent? It seems as though everything in it is contingent, but if you have a reason why the whole is not, that would offer a counter to Hart's claims.

[LadyForCamus]

[quote='LadyForCamus' pid='2082382' dateline='1640640788']
The elaborateness of an argument is not related to the truth of any of its premises, or its conclusion. Arguments can be elaborately fallacious. We’d have to examine these arguments in detail. 

Yes, this is certainly true.

I was addressing the claim that someone was begging the question. 

If that person is offering an argument for his position, he is not affirming the consequent.

Affirming the consequent is not the same as begging the question. The former is a structural error in a formal syllogism which renders it invalid:

“If p then q. q therefore p”

https://www.fallacyfiles.org/afthecon.html

The latter is an informal fallacy in which the truth of the conclusion is assumed in one or more of the premises. Hart accomplishes this by assuming for the sake of his argument that physical reality cannot be necessary and therefore must be contingent, which is the basis of his conclusion. As I said, his argument is fallacious unless he can show, or at least soundly reason to the conclusion that physical reality cannot exist necessarily.

[LadyForCamus]

The elaborateness of an argument is not related to the truth of any of its premises, or its conclusion. Arguments can be elaborately fallacious. We’d have to examine these arguments in detail. 

A question which is likely to come up: do you know of any arguments as to why the physical universe is NOT contingent? It seems as though everything in it is contingent, but if you have a reason why the whole is not, that would offer a counter to Hart's claims.

I’ve already brought up a problem with the notion of physical reality being contingent (post #161), however it’s not relevant seeing as Hart is the one making the argument that it must be contingent. In order for his argument to be valid and sound he needs to be able demonstrate that it is impossible for the existence of physical reality to be necessary. It’s his premise. He owns the burden of proof.

By the way, assuming that because there is contingency within physical realty, physical realty itself must also be contingent is a fallacy of composition.

[Belacqua]

He owns the burden of proof.

"Burden of proof" is way overrated.

It's not writ in stone. It's often used as a way to avoid defending one's own position. If the goal is to "win" something in a debate club, it may be useful. If we're trying to work out the truth, as best we can, it's an interruption.

If he has reasons for his position, he should give them. If we have reasons why we find his position unpersuasive, we should give them. Meanwhile if we find better alternative explanations they may be useful.

By the way, assuming that because there is contingency within physical realty, physical realty itself must also be contingent is a fallacy of composition.

Good thing I didn't do that.

[LadyForCamus]

He owns the burden of proof.

"Burden of proof" is way overrated.

Not when we’re talking about logic. If someone makes an argument they have the responsibility of supporting it. It’s really not more complicated than that. 

It's not writ in stone. It's often used as a way to avoid defending one's own position. If the goal is to "win" something in a debate club, it may be useful. If we're trying to work out the truth, as best we can, it's an interruption.

You don’t believe that sound and valid arguments are relevant to truth? That’s kind of strange. I’m very much interested in the truth. I assume you are too. What do you consider to be the most reliable pathway to truth, Bel? 

Hart has formed an argument for what he believes is a true conclusion about the existence of God; for what he asserts with unwavering certainty atheists are terribly, fatally, irrationally misinformed about. I’m merely assessing the quality of that argument and pointing out the flaws that I notice. As someone who cares about truth, I feel I have a responsibility to try my best at that endeavor. I fail often, but I can’t realize that I’m wrong and get closer to what is reasonable unless someone assesses my critique of the argument and corrects me. I’m not trying to “win” anything. I’m trying to suss out the validity and soundness of this person’s position.  By the way, even if Hart’s argument is fallacious, that doesn’t necessarily mean his conclusion is wrong. But reason should matter to people who claim they care about whether or not their beliefs are true, and who claim that they are correct in the conclusions they’ve drawn from the premises they’ve set up. 

If he has reasons for his position, he should give them. If we have reasons why we find his position unpersuasive, we should give them. Meanwhile if we find better alternative explanations they may be useful.

I addressed both of these in post #138 and #161. I’m interested in hearing what you think.

[The Architect Of Fate]

"Burden of proof" is way overrated.

Only to those who have a vested interest in avoiding it 

It's not writ in stone. It's often used as a way to avoid defending one's own position. If the goal is to "win" something in a debate club, it may be useful. If we're trying to work out the truth, as best we can, it's an interruption.

Nope it's a good totally defendable position to hold positive claims to the fire and only people who want to push unfounded bullshit would have a serious objection to it

If he has reasons for his position, he should give them. If we have reasons why we find his position unpersuasive, we should give them. Meanwhile if we find better alternative explanations they may be useful.

Nope no one is under obligation to refute him or give an alternative  it's his job to convince other people and if he fails that is that 

[Goosebump]

Well this was a hell of a read. I especially liked post 118 where in responding to Belacqua, Polymath manages to both make a strong point against the arguments in Hart's book to Belacqua and tie in the OP question that started the thread. If you read anything in this thread read that post.

I do have a question for Belacqua or anyone here. Is Belacqua genuine or just performing some kind of high brow trolling? I ask this because of the following exchange:

Post 112 by: Belacqua takes some shots at Polymath accusing him of not having read the book and requests he use specific examples from the text. He even tosses out this condescending insult that Polymath brushes off: “I'm not going to twist your arm any more to try to make you do a competent analysis. You should have gotten these textual analytic skills as an undergrad.”

After an exhaustive number of quotes and page numbers provided by Polymath in the following post (113) and in later posts Polymath goes on, in Post 141, to make the same request of Belacqua, for page numbers. He does so completely without the snark demonstrated by Belacqua. However Belacqua completely ignores the request.

From that interaction it looks as though Belacqua has no interest in discussing the book outside of his own understanding of what it said. So is this a troll, dishonesty or something else?