[Vision2020] Re: Eugenie Scott's Talk at U of I

[Joseph Campbell]

Great posts, Michael and Ted! The debate between you two reminds me of an
internal dialogue that has been running through my head for the last 10
years or so. (This isn't the only such internal dialogue, mind you!)

Currently my views are closer in line with Michael's but for most of that
time they were closer to Ted's. Ted's points are precisely what make me like
the Hume/Wittgenstein way of cashing out basic beliefs rather than
Plantinga's. Plantinga's way appears to be an attempt by him to lend
"support" to his own fundamentalist Christian views. Hume and Wittgenstein
allow for more flexibility.

Consider a non-theistic example. Someone like Plantinga might argue that we
have a basic belief in material objects that have a mind-independent
existence. Hume, though, suggests that we have a basic belief in SOMETHING
that has a mind-independent existence. Thus, the content of Hume's basic
beliefs are more minimal than those of Plantinga's. Plantinga has the
problem of explaining how it is that some folks end up being idealists and
denying the existence of MATERIAL objects. Hume has no such problem, for
even idealists believe that some things exist independent of the existence
of particular minds. There is a similar core to all of our beliefs. This
allows us to solve some philosophical problems but not others. We can
respond to the skeptic but no particular philosophical or religious view
wins out over the others.

In light of the diversity of religious and non-religious beliefs, Plantinga
is forced to suggest something like what Michael suggests, e.g., that we (or
some of us) are built with "a highly damaged belief producing mechanism: one
that sometimes hardly works at all, or at other times even when it does
work, it is so weak and faulty that self-deceptive mechanisms." Some people
just get it wrong. I don't find this to be a very satisfying response. To me
it is not so much a response to skepticism as it is a defense of dogmatism.

Hume, on the other hand, allows that our basic beliefs -- even on
'religious' matters -- may be very minimal. We all think that there is
something that accounts for the order and systemization of the universe.
(Some) atheists and agnostics suppose that it is the universe itself,
together with the laws of nature, that accounts for this order and
systemization. (Some) theists suppose that it is a transcendent God. There
are other views, too: pantheism, polytheism, etc.

We spend most of our lives discussing the differences between our beliefs
and looking for some way to find a foothold that allows us to put our
personal beliefs over those of others. Hume and Wittgenstein allow us to
admit that, despite their diversity, there is a great deal that our beliefs
have in common. They suggest that it might be more fruitful to try to
uncover what that is. What are the baseline beliefs that we all share?
Whatever that is it must be very minimal indeed but it is the locus of our
common humanity.

Joe Campbell

> Ted,
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct; if there was a properly functioning belief producing
> mechanism (undamaged) in each and every human being that triggered the
> belief in an Almighty Creator upon the 'evidence' of the beauty and grandeur
> of 'creation,' then each and every human being would be a monotheist.  But
> of course, we know this is not true.  But the fact that there is therefore
> no such belief forming mechanism is not the only alternative.  We could
> propose a highly damaged belief producing mechanism: one that sometimes
> hardly works at all, or at other times even when it does work, it is so weak
> and faulty that self-deceptive mechanisms take over and the belief in an
> Almighty Creator is suppressed (e.g. "but it would be best if the Almighty
> didn't exist so that I could sleep with Sally tonight"). With most, unaided
> and damaged 'reason' produces simply something like a Western God, with not
> much specificity. C.S. Lewis for example, makes a good argument in precisely
> the opposite direction of your argument, as did Cicero and Augustine.  With
> amazing regularity across cultures and time, man is a deeply religious
> being, a worshiping being, having the experience of the 'numinous.' Even in
> the earliest Hindu texts we find a Creator God varuna, faithful to His
> Covenant, giving grace to his worshipers.   All of this is in fact the
> Classical Christian view, and it seems somewhat immune to this particular
> argument of yours.
> 
> 
> 
> I also agree with you that there would seem to be a logically possible
> eternal World/God dualism.  If you wanted to opt out of Scott's
> Philosophical Materialism and also opt out of a Creator God, then this might
> be a logical option open for you.  But as you yourself say, not many humans
> in recorded history have opted for this third option. A logical option is
> not a probable option or an appealing option. Above, you argue from the
> statistics of belief; this same argument would not appear friendly to this
> third proposal.  Scott mentioned the existence of other religious proposals,
> but there is nothing wrong with a broad cultural debate limiting the
> 'alternatives' to those which are far more appealing or probable to the
> majority of people. More could be said about this from both points of view
> I'm sure..  Also, arguing from the "impossibility of the contrary" is always
> open; arguments can be made for limiting the options to only two, as does
> Phil Johnson, thereby making him immune to Scott's charge of a 'false
> alternative.'  
> 
> 
> 
> I think you would need to give some further reasons for supposing that man's
> traditional religious beliefs are political/ideological rather than a
> sincere embrace of what is considered as 'true.'
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Michael Metzler
> 
> 
> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20051013/b9907821/atta
> chment.htm
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>              http://www.fsr.net
>         mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????
> 
> End of Vision2020 Digest, Vol 17, Issue 78
> ******************************************
>