(June 2, 2021 at 3:34 pm)Angrboda Wrote:(June 2, 2021 at 12:46 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Are you able to give me an example of something you consider objective that survives Aggrippas trilema which you frequently raise?
It's Agrippa's trilemma. And the point isn't a pass / fail test but rather the degree to which something fails. A basic belief in an external world is more believable as a basic belief than any speculations about God's grace. So God's grace is a less credible candidate for truth than the existence of the external world. As Hume said, a wise man apportions his belief according to the evidence. The lack of credibility surrounding a specific view of God's grace means that it supports belief in it less well, which is to say it is not as well evidenced. Believing in things that are not well evidenced is irrational. As to the trilemma, I'm not a foundationalist so I don't find the trilemma particularly informative. It's a tool of pedagogy. If I can establish rationality independent of the trilemma, the trilemma is irrelevant. As a personal matter, I consider the trilemma more of a paradox, and bring it out for people who have made positive claims. Skepticism is not a positive claim, so the trilemma is not relevant.
Fair enough and a well-presented position. At the same time, and this is not a personal criticism; but rather an observation of a tendency of yours to adopt a skeptical stance against any form of realism. Yet, credibility is almost by definition a subjective standard and appealing to evidence hardly applies to the "animal faith" we have in external reality and the inner-sense some have of the divine presence. My wonder is to what someone, such as yourself, who seems to deny any form of realism, appeals in order to make claims of objectivity.
<insert profound quote here>
