The real religion?

[Jesster]

I really don't think Steve has read his own book. I'd link it to you so you could do that, but you'd probably ignore that too.

[Edwardo Piet]

He just blocks out anything he can't handle, just like the parts of the Bible he doesn't like.

[FatAndFaithless]

Couldn't I just construct a belief that by definition has no external defeaters, and then call it 'properly basic'?

There are other conditions like properly functioning cognitive faculties, cognitive faculties are operating reliably aimed at truth, and formed in an appropriate epistemic environment (meaning you have, at the very least, internal reasons for the belief). I think these would preclude a belief constructed just to avoid defeaters.

But I could come up with something that fulfills those requirements.  How is being 'properly basic' at all a guarantee that a belief has any relation to reality?  I could believe my cognitive faculties are operating properly and aimed at truth, have internal reasons for a belief, and encounter no external defeaters...and the that says absolutely nothing about how that belief maps to reality - ie, if it's true or not.

[SteveII]

There are other conditions like properly functioning cognitive faculties, cognitive faculties are operating reliably aimed at truth, and formed in an appropriate epistemic environment (meaning you have, at the very least, internal reasons for the belief). I think these would preclude a belief constructed just to avoid defeaters.

But I could come up with something that fulfills those requirements.  How is being 'properly basic' at all a guarantee that a belief has any relation to reality?  I could believe my cognitive faculties are operating properly and aimed at truth, have internal reasons for a belief, and encounter no external defeaters...and the that says absolutely nothing about how that belief maps to reality - ie, if it's true or not.

You are correct, it does not mean the belief is true, only that you are justified in believing it (rational). There could exist defeaters that you are unaware of.

[Jesster]

But I could come up with something that fulfills those requirements.  How is being 'properly basic' at all a guarantee that a belief has any relation to reality?  I could believe my cognitive faculties are operating properly and aimed at truth, have internal reasons for a belief, and encounter no external defeaters...and the that says absolutely nothing about how that belief maps to reality - ie, if it's true or not.

You are correct, it does not mean the belief is true, only that you are justified in believing it (rational). There could exist defeaters that you are unaware of.

Except the rationality would also rely on evidence that it is true. You can make an internally logical argument that does not show up in reality. That does not make it true. The original premise has to mean something before that argument can be accepted to reflect on reality. Otherwise you are not practicing rationality in any way that actually matters.

[FatAndFaithless]

But I could come up with something that fulfills those requirements.  How is being 'properly basic' at all a guarantee that a belief has any relation to reality?  I could believe my cognitive faculties are operating properly and aimed at truth, have internal reasons for a belief, and encounter no external defeaters...and the that says absolutely nothing about how that belief maps to reality - ie, if it's true or not.

You are correct, it does not mean the belief is true, only that you are justified in believing it (rational). There could exist defeaters that you are unaware of.

If that's all that it takes to be considered 'rational' then that word loses its meaning.  if there's no way to investigate a belief with any sort of external framework for validation and comparison, it's a useless belief, and claiming that it's "rational" is equally as vapid.

If I can just whip up a belief out of my ass that fulfills the requirements for being 'properly basic,' that should say something about how useful being 'properly basic' really is.

[Angrboda]

All you are doing is claiming that they are different people.  If they really are different people then there should be evidence that they have changed.  But you don't have that evidence.  So you just keep repeating the claim.  Repeating the claim doesn't make it true.

Moreover, this is only evidence that different people respond to the same conditioning in similar ways.  It isn't evidence that the underlying cause lies outside themselves.  Have you heard of the 'god center' in the brain?  It appears that we are pre-wired to have religious experiences.  If that is so, then all those experiences are evidence for is that pre-wiring, not of the religious experience itself.  How do you know these 'billion' people aren't simply experiencing the same fundamental neural events having nothing to do with an actual religious experience.  I've heard Buddhists claim that their experience of meditation has changed their lives as well.  Same experience, different interpretation.  You're holding up the feelings and claiming that they are evidence of a particular interpretation.  They're not.  They're just evidence of common feelings.  Despite your claims that Christianity is unique, these same feelings pop up in all sorts of different religions.  So what we have are nothing but evidence of the feelings, which isn't unique to Christianity.

Why isn't the 'god center' in the brain further justification for the position that belief in God is properly basic? In regards to the other religions, I agree that feelings can be affected by all sorts of things--including religion--including Christianity. That does not mean that the stronger claim of a Christian to be changed by a relationship with God is false. 

The implication that a belief is properly basic carries with it the related claim that the belief is independently true. A god center could give rise to feelings that are basic without them being independently true, just as a hallucination would be basic without being true in what it tells the mind. It doesn't mean the feelings themselves are false, only the interpretation that they come from a god is. And now, are you asking me to assume the burden of proof for your claim in telling me that your claim about changed Christians has not been thereby shown to be false? It's your claim, and yours to show that it is valid. Regardless, I don't believe that belief in God is properly basic. If you do, then I can't argue with your presuppositions.

Do you believe that the mind is contingent on but separate from the brain?

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by that phrase. I believe the mind is a product of the processes of the brain. It's contingent upon, but not separate from the brain.

[bennyboy]

The Bible teaches in many places that God has written on the hearts of men/women things like morality, knowledge of God, etc.

The Wizard of Oz teaches that if you hide behind a curtain, people won't notice how ridiculous you are.

But if you hide behind 2000 year-old fairy tales. . . they will.

[Expired]

The Bible teaches in many places that God has written on the hearts of men/women things like morality, knowledge of God, etc.

The Wizard of Oz teaches that if you hide behind a curtain, people won't notice how ridiculous you are.

But if you hide behind 2000 year-old fairy tales. . . they will.

It would have been good if the tree of knowledge had been like the apple tree in the wizard of Oz. Smacking their hands and throwing apples at them.

[SteveII]

You are correct, it does not mean the belief is true, only that you are justified in believing it (rational). There could exist defeaters that you are unaware of.

If that's all that it takes to be considered 'rational' then that word loses its meaning.  if there's no way to investigate a belief with any sort of external framework for validation and comparison, it's a useless belief, and claiming that it's "rational" is equally as vapid.

If I can just whip up a belief out of my ass that fulfills the requirements for being 'properly basic,' that should say something about how useful being 'properly basic' really is.

Sorry, this is the first time on this subject for me. Let me amend my description. To be a 'basic belief' require the belief to be a foundational or non-inferential before applying the other criteria with would then determine if the belief was a properly basic belief. For example, we are wired to believe in God so such a belief is both basic as well as properly basic.