(June 9, 2014 at 9:26 am)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Because that's what a properly basic belief IS. That's like asking why one would call a congruent quadrilateral polygon a square.I've already said in a subsequent post that I was taking the words "properly basic" other than how you meant them.
Quote:That is not what I did. Read my post again. I said things like "Reasoming's validity, generally the reliability of our senses, and the existence of other minds" are properly basic beliefs, not the nature of sensation.I'd accept the validity of reasoning as properly basic. "Sense" reliability subtly implies an underlying world view-- that there is a mind, and an object which it senses; this may be true, but the reliability of the senses is therefore not basic. The existence of other minds I'm not too sure about-- in general, I'd say a belief in the existence of something you don't have direct access to is NOT properly basic, because you must first believe in a framework in which things may be said to exist. Where do other minds exist? In space? Time? The Mind of God?
Keep in mind that the use of the term "properly basic belief" is new to me, but based on what I can grok so far, I think many ideas are taken as properly basic which really aren't.
Quote:You do realize that Reformed Epistemology is not synonymous with the view that there are properly basic beliefs, right? REs simply include belief in God as a properly basic belief, and claim that only the Christian worldview is consistent and reasonable (they are a form of Presuppositionalism after all).Not only do I not realize it, I don't even know what you are talking about, or why. Has something about my position/s made you think that I have any association with a Christian worldview?
