tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post4086185335882370423..comments2024-03-28T05:47:54.177+00:00Comments on Philosophical Disquisitions: Reformed Epistemology (Part 1): The Foundationalist MenaceJohn Danaherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06761686258507859309noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-27044025315667036862009-12-29T17:11:56.609+00:002009-12-29T17:11:56.609+00:00"Thus rendering God-belief practically unassa..."Thus rendering God-belief practically unassailable."<br /><br />this is of course, the objective, making the exercise a bit disingenuous..Rich Hugheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18037140349297065008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-57263997392722934222009-12-29T16:35:47.417+00:002009-12-29T16:35:47.417+00:00I think that is the biggest problem for Plantinga,...I think that is the biggest problem for Plantinga, i.e. it seems far too easy for him to sneak God-belief into the basic belief category. <br /><br />It is also rather infuriating given how he will respond to critics by saying the haven't fully imbibed the import of his arguments against classical foundationalism, What he seems to mean by this is that they are still using logical self-evidency or conscious awareness as the yardstick against which to measure all other beliefs. They haven't accepted that other beliefs need no justification.<br /><br />Maybe I am being unfair to him, but I think this reduces reformed epistemology to a type of Lutheran fideism (which i covered when looking at chapter 1 of Everitt's book). Luther thought reason was to serve God, not stand above him. Well, it seems to me that Plantinga is just putting God and reason on the same level. Thus rendering God-belief practically unassailable.John Danaherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06761686258507859309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-40013026422394663402009-12-29T15:07:41.747+00:002009-12-29T15:07:41.747+00:00By Boolean (1 or 0) I mean yes or no, not partiall...By Boolean (1 or 0) I mean yes or no, not partially, mostly, etc. There is clear demarcation: it is Properly Basic or not, but the hurdle for being Properly Basic seems arbitrary and fuzzy, we descend into 'you know it when you see it'.<br /><br />For example, for water, hot is relative but boiling is absolute. Proper Basicality needs to be 'Boiling'.<br /><br />Think of the criteria one could suggest for proper basicality:<br /><br />"One cannot function socially without it"<br /><br />"It would be shared by 99.9% percent of the population"<br /><br />these would seem to be as good as any, but Religiosity would fail.<br /><br />Plantinga perhaps cherry-picks with a goal in mind?<br /><br />Thanks for the link, keep up the excellent, must-reads blog.Rich Hugheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18037140349297065008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-48875757060352704722009-12-28T18:07:13.832+00:002009-12-28T18:07:13.832+00:00Nor do I, but you will have to educate me on what ...Nor do I, but you will have to educate me on what you mean by calling them Boolean. I'm not too au fait with formal logic. Do you mean the concept is too binary because something either is or is not basic? <br /><br />The discussion in Everitt's book is slightly frustrating in that it doesn't really make the case for an alternative epistemology. Then again, he's only interested in the merits of Plantinga's arguments: to explore such matters would be excessive in a work of this nature.<br /><br />I am too much of Quinean to be a fan of foundationalism. I'm reading some interesting stuff by Penelope Maddy at the moment on an anti-foundationalist, but naturalist epistemology. Might do a few posts on it once I am finished.<br /><br />You might like it since it goes more into the mathematical set theory stuff. You can download a number of her papers here:<br /><br />http://www.lps.uci.edu/maddy/index.htmlJohn Danaherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06761686258507859309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-185718314259145622009-12-28T15:20:14.742+00:002009-12-28T15:20:14.742+00:00I don't really like the concept of Basic Belie...I don't really like the concept of Basic Beliefs because there is no 'confidence' criteria, they seem Boolean.Rich Hugheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18037140349297065008noreply@blogger.com