Posts: 65
Threads: 14
Joined: December 10, 2013
Reputation:
1
Is evidentialism a dead philosophy?
April 2, 2014 at 7:53 am
It seems to me that some of the arguments against evidentialism from Alvin Plantinga have dealt a huge blow to evidentialism.
Particularly the arguments about how we believe in the existence of other minds, yet we don't really have evidence for that belief. Or the existence of the external world, the only way we can verify if the external world exists is through our senses, and who's to say our perceptions are completely incorrect, and we're actually a brain in a vat, dreaming all of this?
I know, that these arguments do not prove god, it just justifies believing in god without evidence, but I don't think we can just let that slide. How can you believe in a god without evidence, and be called rational? Sure, we may believe in the existence of other minds without evidence, but the existence of a god is not nearly as obvious, nor serves any practical relevance. You can't be justified in a belief in god because 'it's obvious to me', I think it needs to be obvious to everyone in order for it to be justified. If god's existence is 'just obvious', why is it not obvious to a large percentage of the population? If there were a god, wouldn't there be evidence of his existence? If so, why do they need to resort to making certain beliefs justified without evidence in order to make their case?
Posts: 18510
Threads: 129
Joined: January 19, 2014
Reputation:
91
RE: Is evidentialism a dead philosophy?
April 2, 2014 at 8:05 am
(April 2, 2014 at 7:53 am)Freedom of thought Wrote: It seems to me that some of the arguments against evidentialism from Alvin Plantinga have dealt a huge blow to evidentialism.
I have no idea what evidentialism is, but this sentence is enough to convince me that it must have its merits.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
Posts: 65
Threads: 14
Joined: December 10, 2013
Reputation:
1
RE: Is evidentialism a dead philosophy?
April 2, 2014 at 8:14 am
(This post was last modified: April 2, 2014 at 8:15 am by Freedom of thought.)
(April 2, 2014 at 8:05 am)Alex K Wrote: (April 2, 2014 at 7:53 am)Freedom of thought Wrote: It seems to me that some of the arguments against evidentialism from Alvin Plantinga have dealt a huge blow to evidentialism.
I have no idea what evidentialism is, but this sentence is enough to convince me that it must have its merits.
I haven't read any replies to his arguments, I can't seem to find any. Evidentialism is basically the view that all beliefs must be substantiated by evidence.
Posts: 1121
Threads: 53
Joined: February 5, 2013
Reputation:
15
RE: Is evidentialism a dead philosophy?
April 2, 2014 at 8:23 am
(April 2, 2014 at 7:53 am)Freedom of thought Wrote: It seems to me that some of the arguments against evidentialism from Alvin Plantinga have dealt a huge blow to evidentialism.
Particularly the arguments about how we believe in the existence of other minds, yet we don't really have evidence for that belief. Or the existence of the external world, the only way we can verify if the external world exists is through our senses, and who's to say our perceptions are completely incorrect, and we're actually a brain in a vat, dreaming all of this?
I know, that these arguments do not prove god, it just justifies believing in god without evidence, but I don't think we can just let that slide. How can you believe in a god without evidence, and be called rational? Sure, we may believe in the existence of other minds without evidence, but the existence of a god is not nearly as obvious, nor serves any practical relevance. You can't be justified in a belief in god because 'it's obvious to me', I think it needs to be obvious to everyone in order for it to be justified. If god's existence is 'just obvious', why is it not obvious to a large percentage of the population? If there were a god, wouldn't there be evidence of his existence? If so, why do they need to resort to making certain beliefs justified without evidence in order to make their case?
Scientists and people who adhere to scientific theory believe that the results of their observations will be repeated in the future, there is no evidence of this yet the belief persists.
There's a lot of it about.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
Posts: 65
Threads: 14
Joined: December 10, 2013
Reputation:
1
RE: Is evidentialism a dead philosophy?
April 2, 2014 at 8:55 am
(April 2, 2014 at 8:23 am)ManMachine Wrote: (April 2, 2014 at 7:53 am)Freedom of thought Wrote: It seems to me that some of the arguments against evidentialism from Alvin Plantinga have dealt a huge blow to evidentialism.
Particularly the arguments about how we believe in the existence of other minds, yet we don't really have evidence for that belief. Or the existence of the external world, the only way we can verify if the external world exists is through our senses, and who's to say our perceptions are completely incorrect, and we're actually a brain in a vat, dreaming all of this?
I know, that these arguments do not prove god, it just justifies believing in god without evidence, but I don't think we can just let that slide. How can you believe in a god without evidence, and be called rational? Sure, we may believe in the existence of other minds without evidence, but the existence of a god is not nearly as obvious, nor serves any practical relevance. You can't be justified in a belief in god because 'it's obvious to me', I think it needs to be obvious to everyone in order for it to be justified. If god's existence is 'just obvious', why is it not obvious to a large percentage of the population? If there were a god, wouldn't there be evidence of his existence? If so, why do they need to resort to making certain beliefs justified without evidence in order to make their case?
Scientists and people who adhere to scientific theory believe that the results of their observations will be repeated in the future, there is no evidence of this yet the belief persists.
There's a lot of it about.
MM
But the thing is, their belief that their observations will be repeated in future is founded on the fact all previous experiments have shown to be repeatable, so it's not a belief without evidence or justification. If you adopt reliabilism, that a belief can be rationally held as long as it has been gained through a reliable mechanism, it's perfectly consistent.
Posts: 6851
Threads: 76
Joined: October 17, 2012
Reputation:
31
RE: Is evidentialism a dead philosophy?
April 2, 2014 at 9:01 am
(April 2, 2014 at 7:53 am)Freedom of thought Wrote: I know, that these arguments do not prove god, it just justifies believing in god without evidence, but I don't think we can just let that slide. How can you believe in a god without evidence, and be called rational? Sure, we may believe in the existence of other minds without evidence, but the existence of a god is not nearly as obvious, nor serves any practical relevance. You can't be justified in a belief in god because 'it's obvious to me', I think it needs to be obvious to everyone in order for it to be justified. If god's existence is 'just obvious', why is it not obvious to a large percentage of the population? If there were a god, wouldn't there be evidence of his existence? If so, why do they need to resort to making certain beliefs justified without evidence in order to make their case? By that logic, your definition of evidence must be obvious to everyone in order to be justified, but it isn't. You presumably don't consider ancient texts to be evidence. Some people do.
Posts: 13051
Threads: 66
Joined: February 7, 2011
Reputation:
92
RE: Is evidentialism a dead philosophy?
April 2, 2014 at 10:28 am
(This post was last modified: April 2, 2014 at 10:30 am by Faith No More.)
I don't know about this specific counter-argument, but every time I hear about how awesome one of Plantiga's arguments is, it turns out to be total bullshit. In fact, I can think of plenty of evidence to believe in other minds, and that second part about about the verifiability of the external world and the fallibility of our senses is hardly a blow against evidentialism. It's actually a plus for skepticism and all the more reason for empirical evidence to be necessary, two things Mr. Platinga abhors.
The man appears to be less a philosopher than he is a justifier of his own pre-conceived beliefs, and I have seen nothing from him that wasn't just a bunch of hot wind. And no offense, but the fact that you take him seriously makes me wonder if you truly are an atheist.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Posts: 1121
Threads: 53
Joined: February 5, 2013
Reputation:
15
RE: Is evidentialism a dead philosophy?
April 2, 2014 at 11:02 am
(April 2, 2014 at 8:55 am)Freedom of thought Wrote: (April 2, 2014 at 8:23 am)ManMachine Wrote: Scientists and people who adhere to scientific theory believe that the results of their observations will be repeated in the future, there is no evidence of this yet the belief persists.
There's a lot of it about.
MM
But the thing is, their belief that their observations will be repeated in future is founded on the fact all previous experiments have shown to be repeatable, so it's not a belief without evidence or justification. If you adopt reliabilism, that a belief can be rationally held as long as it has been gained through a reliable mechanism, it's perfectly consistent.
We agree that it's a belief.
The philosophy you employ to justify your belief is not in question.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
Posts: 1309
Threads: 44
Joined: March 13, 2014
Reputation:
6
RE: Is evidentialism a dead philosophy?
April 2, 2014 at 11:06 am
(April 2, 2014 at 8:14 am)Freedom of thought Wrote: (April 2, 2014 at 8:05 am)Alex K Wrote: I have no idea what evidentialism is, but this sentence is enough to convince me that it must have its merits.
I haven't read any replies to his arguments, I can't seem to find any. Evidentialism is basically the view that all beliefs must be substantiated by evidence.
What do you suggest instead?
Posts: 13051
Threads: 66
Joined: February 7, 2011
Reputation:
92
RE: Is evidentialism a dead philosophy?
April 2, 2014 at 11:16 am
(April 2, 2014 at 11:02 am)ManMachine Wrote: The philosophy you employ to justify your belief is not in question.
I'm pretty sure that is actually the whole point of the thread.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
|
