mustbeageek

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg
Showing posts with label critical rationalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label critical rationalism. Show all posts

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Loftus on Silver Bullets

Posted on 12:54 PM by Unknown
John Loftus seems to me raising the distinction between "silver bullet" arguments that in fact persuade everyone, and arguments which, even though they don't persuade everyone, ought to persaude everyone. I made this exact distinction in my book, when I was talking about strong rationalism.   Now, clearly, no arguments about, say, belief in the existence of God are satisfying to everyone. There are atheists and theists on the highest levels of education. But the strong rationalist can maintain that while the case for belief (or unbelief) is not in fact convincing to everyone, it should be. The evidence is strong enough to convince everyone who is well informed and rational; if a well-informed person rejects the evidence, it is rejected because he suffers from some species of cognitive pathology—that is, from some kind of failure or inability to recognize the truth. Consider what many academics believe about astrology. Surely there are plenty of people who believe in astrology,  but I at least am inclined to suppose that a careful study of astrological beliefs will show that it is not reasonable to accept these claims.

C. S. Lewis’s Dangerous Idea, p. 31.

John adds:

Such an argument does not have to be convincing. With this in mind I think there are plenty of silver bullets. That you don't see them merely means you have resorted to faith to overcome it. Faith, by the way, is irrational.

Again, I think talking about faith in this way obfuscates the issue, especially if you are talking to someone who accepts C. S. Lewis's definition of faith.

"Faith is that art of hold on to things which your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods. Unless you teach your moods where they get off, you can never be either a sound Christian or a sound atheist, but just a creature dithering to and for, with its beliefs really dependent on the weather or the sate of its digestion. Consequently one must train the habit of faith.”







Read More
Posted in critical rationalism, defining faith, faith, strong rationalism | No comments
Older Posts Home
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • Is there a general conception of God?
    Here is some discussion on Debunking Christianity. I had been in a discussion on a prior thread with Cole, who had argued that in the absen...
  • The point I've been trying to make
    I put this discussion on the DC boards.  Semantics, not apologetics. I'm going try one more time to explain my beef. There is a differe...
  • The Naturalism thread redone
    I am trying to get rid of an unsightly mess this post caused, so I am redoing it, with the comments included “ But if naturalism is true , t...
  • The hiddenness of God
    This discussion, by Loftus, explains a typical atheist response on what good evidence for theism would look like to them. What it does is r...
  • Corduan replies to Carrier on miracles
    Here.
  • Explicating Conservatism: Some Questions for Ilion and other self-described conservatives
    Ilion, let's try to unpack your claim here. I: Meanwhile, Prokop and his fellow leftist partisans *do* believe in, and *do* agitate for,...
  • Reply to Hitchens on Mother Teresa
    Here.
  • Some discussion of burdens of proof (based on a dialogue on Debunking Christianity)
    The thread is here.  That gets down to some very basic issues in epistemology. I did my doctoral work at a highly secular university philoso...
  • Why Republicans won't repeal Obamacare even if they are elected
    Here.
  • The Problem of Pain-for naturalists.
    Steven Carr wrote: I really don't think Victor understands the argument from evil. Evil and suffering occur pretty much randomly. There ...

Categories

  • abortion (4)
  • ad hominem arguments (4)
  • AFR (7)
  • Angus Menuge (1)
  • anti-intellectualism (1)
  • anti-religious propaganda (2)
  • Aquinas (2)
  • archaeology (1)
  • argument from beauty (1)
  • argument from confusion (1)
  • argument from consciousness (1)
  • argument from design (4)
  • argument from desire (1)
  • argument from evil (4)
  • argument from intentionality (3)
  • argument from martyrdom (1)
  • argument from reason (12)
  • argument from size (1)
  • Arianism (1)
  • Athanasuis (1)
  • atheism (30)
  • atheism and rhetoric (2)
  • atheistic arguments (1)
  • atonement (1)
  • Balfour (1)
  • Barack Obama (3)
  • Bayesianism (3)
  • Benedict XVI (1)
  • Bertrand Russell (1)
  • biblical criticism (1)
  • biblical ethics (1)
  • biblical inspiration (1)
  • Bill Clinton (1)
  • Buddhism (1)
  • Bulverism (3)
  • Bulverism. (1)
  • burden of proof (3)
  • business ethics (1)
  • C. S. Lewis (21)
  • C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea (1)
  • campaign finance reform (1)
  • capital punishment (2)
  • capitalism (3)
  • Catholicism (1)
  • Christian apologetics (4)
  • Christian philosophy (1)
  • Christian socialism (1)
  • Christianity (2)
  • Christianity and Islam (1)
  • christianity and politics (2)
  • Chronological snobbery (1)
  • church and state (1)
  • classical theism (3)
  • comments (1)
  • communism (1)
  • conservatism (4)
  • contemporary miracles (1)
  • conversion (2)
  • cosmological argument (1)
  • cosmological arguments (2)
  • courtier's reply (1)
  • creationism (1)
  • critical rationalism (1)
  • cultural relativism (1)
  • cumulative case arguments (1)
  • Daniel Dennett (2)
  • Darwinism (2)
  • death penalty (3)
  • debates (1)
  • deficits (1)
  • defining evolution (1)
  • defining faith (4)
  • defining materialism (1)
  • defining naturalism (2)
  • divine command morality (2)
  • Doctor Logic (1)
  • Dualism (2)
  • dwindling probabilities (1)
  • EAAN (1)
  • Easter (1)
  • ECREE (6)
  • eliminativism (1)
  • embryonic stem cell research (2)
  • epistemology (1)
  • ethical relativism (1)
  • ethical subjectivism (3)
  • ethics (2)
  • ethics without god (2)
  • ethics without god. ethics (1)
  • Euthyphro (1)
  • evidence (2)
  • Evolution (8)
  • Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (2)
  • exclusivism (1)
  • fact and opinion (1)
  • faith (3)
  • Faith and Reason (2)
  • fallacy of composition (1)
  • fideism (1)
  • fine-tuning argument (3)
  • first way (1)
  • five ways (1)
  • flat earth (1)
  • Francis Collins (2)
  • free thought (2)
  • free will (1)
  • functionalism (1)
  • fundamentalism (1)
  • fundamentalist atheism (2)
  • G. K. Chesterton (2)
  • Gandhi (1)
  • gay marriage (2)
  • gnu atheism (1)
  • God and goodness (1)
  • god of the gaps (5)
  • gun control (1)
  • hallucination theory (3)
  • hard determinism (1)
  • Health Care (1)
  • heaven (2)
  • historical argument (3)
  • historical reliability of the NT (2)
  • Holy Spirit (1)
  • homosexuality (1)
  • Hume (4)
  • ideologues (1)
  • illegal immigration (2)
  • inclusivism (1)
  • indexicals (1)
  • informal fallacies (2)
  • intelligent design (10)
  • intentionality (2)
  • Islam (1)
  • J. R. R. Tolkien (1)
  • Jeffrey Jay Lowder (2)
  • Joe Biden (1)
  • John Loftus (13)
  • just war theory (1)
  • Kalam Cosmological Argument (3)
  • Kant (2)
  • Keith Parsons (4)
  • liberalism (1)
  • libertarianism (1)
  • logical fallacies (1)
  • logical problem of evil (1)
  • love (1)
  • Lydia McGrew (4)
  • lying (1)
  • materialism (5)
  • mathematics (1)
  • Mere Christianity (1)
  • metaphysical naturalism (1)
  • methodological naturalism (1)
  • mind-body dualism (2)
  • miracles (9)
  • Mitt Romney (1)
  • modalities (1)
  • moral argument (3)
  • moral objectivity (2)
  • moral relativism (1)
  • morality and religion (2)
  • morality without God (1)
  • Mormonism (1)
  • multiverse hypothesis (1)
  • Naturalism (6)
  • near-death experiences (1)
  • open theism (1)
  • outsider test (5)
  • P Z Myers (1)
  • pacifism (1)
  • paranormal (1)
  • paranornal (1)
  • Paul Ryan (1)
  • Peter Van Inwagen (1)
  • philosophy (2)
  • philosophy of mind (3)
  • physicalism (1)
  • Plantinga (1)
  • politics (3)
  • prayer studies (1)
  • pride (1)
  • probability (1)
  • problem of evil (3)
  • property dualism (1)
  • public education (1)
  • purpose (1)
  • qualia (1)
  • reductionism (1)
  • Reformed epistemology (1)
  • relativism (1)
  • religion and morality (3)
  • religion and science (1)
  • religious relativism (1)
  • Resurrection (4)
  • retributive theory of punishment (1)
  • Richard Carrier (1)
  • Richard Carrier (3)
  • Richard Dawkins (7)
  • ridicule (1)
  • Robin Collins (1)
  • Satan (1)
  • scientific realism (2)
  • Scripture (3)
  • sexual morality (1)
  • skepticism (1)
  • Social Darwinism (1)
  • socialism (2)
  • socialized medicine (1)
  • soteriological exclusivism (1)
  • St. Thomas Aquinas (1)
  • Steve Lovell (1)
  • strong rationalism (1)
  • Super Bowl (2)
  • supernaturalism (1)
  • Swinburne (2)
  • the argument from asymmetry (1)
  • the argument from evil (7)
  • the argument from reason (15)
  • the concept of God (1)
  • the definition of faith (2)
  • the new atheism (16)
  • the outsider test (5)
  • the problem of evil (3)
  • the right to privacy (1)
  • the Unmoved Mover (1)
  • theism (4)
  • theistic arguments (3)
  • theistic explanations (2)
  • Theodore Drange (1)
  • theological voluntarism (1)
  • theology and falsification (1)
  • Thomas Nagel (5)
  • Thomism (1)
  • Thomistic Cosmological Argument (1)
  • Tim McGrew (8)
  • Trinity (2)
  • Vallicella (2)
  • vitalism (1)
  • Wall Street (1)
  • William Dembski (1)
  • William Hasker (1)
  • William Lane Craig (7)
  • Winfred Corduan (1)
  • young earth creationism (1)
  • zombies (1)

Blog Archive

  • ▼  2013 (180)
    • ▼  September (9)
      • One-sided academic freedom?
      • Some Clarifications for Steven Carr
      • How did God do that?
      • Lowder's Is "Freethinker" Synonymous with Nontheist?
      • Athanasius' On the Incarnation
      • Evangelical Outpost on Zombies
      • You can't argue with a zombie
      • The Stanford entry on Functionalism
      • A question for naturalists
    • ►  August (22)
    • ►  July (10)
    • ►  June (15)
    • ►  May (25)
    • ►  April (29)
    • ►  March (26)
    • ►  February (18)
    • ►  January (26)
  • ►  2012 (268)
    • ►  December (20)
    • ►  November (26)
    • ►  October (30)
    • ►  September (23)
    • ►  August (24)
    • ►  July (33)
    • ►  June (23)
    • ►  May (19)
    • ►  April (23)
    • ►  March (22)
    • ►  February (13)
    • ►  January (12)
  • ►  2011 (52)
    • ►  December (22)
    • ►  November (28)
    • ►  October (2)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile