[Vision2020] Wayne Fox, God, and The Induction of Man

[Michael]

Wayne Writes:

 

"I doubt that this statement is true [philosophers have abandoned the
deductive form of the problem of evil argument].  Perhaps you can produce a
survey of philosophical and theological literature for the last 20 years to
demonstrate it."  

 

Me:

Plantinga writes, 

"Now until twenty of twenty-five years ago, the favored sort of a
theological argument from evil was for the conclusion that there is a
logical inconsistency in what Christians believe.At present however, it is
widely conceded that there is nothing like straightforward contradiction or
necessary falsehood in the join affirmation of God and evil; the existence
of evil is not logically incompatible (even in the broadly logical sense)
with the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good God."

 

His footnote to this claim is half a page long on page 461, Warranted
Christian Belief, Oxford University Press, 2000.  

 

I did a search and only looked at one site, in which I quickly found support
for this claim.  On Stanford.edu:

"If a premise such as (1) cannot, at least at present, be established
deductively, then the only possibility, it would seem, is to offer some sort
of inductive argument in support of the relevant premise. But if this is
right, then it is surely best to get that crucial inductive step out into
the open, and thus to formulate the argument from evil not as a deductive
argument for the very strong claim that it is logically impossible for both
God and evil to exist, (or for God and certain types, or instances, of evil
to exist), but as an evidential (inductive/probabilistic) argument for the
more modest claim that there are evils that actually exist in the world that
make it unlikely that God exists."

 

Wayne Writes:

"Induction, in a nutshell, works thusly:

Observations are made, data is collected, etc.  A theory/model is developed
during this process (such development also continually uses deductive
processes, but for brevity, I leave it to you to discover this)...The second
- n tests of an inductive theory/model are deducing expected observations
from it and then seeing if those observations occur..."

 

Me:

By inductive, I was referring merely to the most basic epistemic analysis,
the most general. It is how I think Brian Skyrms (sp?) explains it, and how
the introductory textbook material I'm familiar with sets it out. I'm not
speaking about something more specific such as collecting data, scientific
hypothesis, and the like.  Rather, induction is most properly considered,
when considered only generally, an evidential weighing of premises.
Deduction is a simple, certain, syllogistic relation between premises and
conclusion; a deductive argument is either valid or invalid. Induction, on
the other hand, is just the only other kind of relationship there is between
'premises' and conclusion: the evidential kind. Induction is not an On/Off
sort of thing; rather, an inductive conclusion is always more or less
'strong' or 'weak.' There is no certainty in an inductive argument, in
virtue of the way evidence works; a very strong inductive argument can
become very weak with the addition of only one piece of evidence, as was the
case with the man who was locked up for 18 years (recent Vision post); we
had strong enough evidence to lock this man up and then with just one piece
of DNA evidence 18 years later, we set him free with our apologies.
Induction is pretty potent stuff. This understanding of induction is
necessary for understanding my original post on the Problem of Evil.

 

Thank You,

Michael Metzler

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20051103/b39cba7b/attachment-0001.htm