tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post3519849208951627262..comments2024-03-28T05:47:54.177+00:00Comments on Philosophical Disquisitions: Taxonomising Theistic Arguments (Part 1)John Danaherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06761686258507859309noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-84368880145962442112010-04-07T22:44:54.292+01:002010-04-07T22:44:54.292+01:00maybe something along these lines:
http://www.tru...maybe something along these lines:<br /><br />http://www.truthforsaints.com/WorldReligionsCompared/files/world-religion-family-tree-2.jpg<br /><br />?Rich Hugheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18037140349297065008noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-33492495560248796532010-01-21T07:55:51.530+00:002010-01-21T07:55:51.530+00:00Yes, it is Hebrew. It's my name, "Yair Re...Yes, it is Hebrew. It's my name, "Yair Rezek", in Hebrew.יאיר רזקhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15798134654972572485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-11085712152797394952010-01-21T03:45:30.247+00:002010-01-21T03:45:30.247+00:00Would you be classifying the arguments by type (Li...Would you be classifying the arguments by type (Linnaen) or by descent and common origin (Darwinian)?CRLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09236470207500674153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-30178389865255023972010-01-20T18:11:47.747+00:002010-01-20T18:11:47.747+00:00Previous commenter,
What language is that? Hebrew...Previous commenter,<br /><br />What language is that? Hebrew?<br /><br />I admit that it doesn't make much sense without examples. And you are right that the main difference is just an inversion of perspective (so ultimate assumptions about the nature of logic and the like are at the root).<br /><br />Some of the statements I made in the post are, in retrospect, unhelpful. The more I think about it, the more I realise I am offering a potentially useful metaphor or framework for debates. The framework is that of a backwards journey from our present assumptions towards the truth (which I think is atheism). It would pass through a number of stages. The first stage would get people to question their own beliefs; then the beliefs of others; then the moral significance of their beliefs, then the pragmatic significance of their beliefs, then finally the ontological truth of their beliefs (different arguments would be relevant at different stages e.g. reformed epistemology and arguments from personal experience would be relevant at the first stage; arguments from cultural authority would be relevant at the second stage; moral arguments and the problem of evil would be relevant at the third stage and so on). <br /><br />I'll put up a more detailed and well thought-out version of this eventually.John Danaherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06761686258507859309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-41935813494938450662010-01-20T17:54:54.462+00:002010-01-20T17:54:54.462+00:00I too find it difficult to understand without exam...I too find it difficult to understand without examples. But if I understood correctly, I don't see how this fundamentally differs from logical-structure. The only real difference is that you include deductive methods in addition to assumptions and arguments, and the line between deductive principles and axioms is flexible and arbitrary.<br /><br />In other words, the base of your tree is common assumptions like "We should trust logic" or "The world around us is the real world; we're not in the Matrix". From there you add further assumptions, about how to reason and about the world and so on. Your presentation switches this picture, talking about the root as if it was the exterior branches and going "backwards" meaning going up the logical structure. But this is just a switch in perspective.<br /><br />Incidentally, my own classification was: cosmological, ontological, teleological, transcendental, miracles, personal experience, usefulness, tradition, and the all-important "other". Not a very thorough classification, I'd grant, but it's point was to collate arguments that share the same structure, and this I think has great intellectual virtue when it comes to evaluating them. (Once you've seen one, you've pretty much got a handle on all the variants in that class.) A more thorough classification would certainly be interesting.יאיר רזקhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15798134654972572485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-30111206538153907212010-01-20T17:27:08.073+00:002010-01-20T17:27:08.073+00:00It's hard for me to envision what you mean unt...It's hard for me to envision what you mean until I see your examples.Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12968634190280933116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1780806945960886534.post-35892203761825834672010-01-17T23:39:19.617+00:002010-01-17T23:39:19.617+00:00You know, I read it through once but it was long a...You know, I read it through once but it was long and I am a bit tired. I have no idea what you are trying to accomplish. Too abstract or I am too tired.Sabio Lantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12963476276106907984noreply@blogger.com