<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:v =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1 =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2769" name=GENERATOR><o:SmartTagType
downloadurl="http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City"
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"></o:SmartTagType><o:SmartTagType
downloadurl="http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/" name="place"
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"></o:SmartTagType><!--[if !mso]>
<STYLE>st1\:* {
BEHAVIOR: url(#default#ieooui)
}
</STYLE>
<![endif]-->
<STYLE>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:Arial;
color:windowtext;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</STYLE>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1027" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></HEAD>
<BODY lang=EN-US vLink=purple link=blue bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=4>Michael you write:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on"><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Wayne</SPAN></FONT></st1:City></st1:place>
Writes:<o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">“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.” <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Me:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">Plantinga writes, <o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">“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.”<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">His footnote to this claim is half a page long on page
461, Warranted Christian Belief, Oxford University Press, 2000.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><o:p> </o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">I did a search and only looked at one site, in which I
quickly found support for this claim. On
Stanford.edu:<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">“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.”</SPAN></FONT></P>
<P><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT face=Verdana size=4><o:p>
</o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT face=Verdana
size=4><o:p>[1] Just because Plantinga asserts something about
trends in philosophical/theological discussions, does not mean you should
ovinely accept it and bandy it about with evidence. How does he know
this? Did he make a valid, reliable, and methodologically correct survey
of all the philosophical and theological articles from all the different
publications were such articles are likely to occur? If not, it would
be foolish to believe this knowledge claim based purely on his personal
experience. </o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT face=Verdana
size=4><o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
face=Verdana size=4><o:p>[2] The cite you quote from
Stanford.edu does not support your claims but are counter to them in two
ways:</o:p></FONT></SPAN><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
face=Verdana size=4><o:p> </o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT face=Verdana
size=4><o:p> [A] The cite appears
to use the word "induction" in the sense in which I previously described,
not in the unorthodox way you use in the cite below.</o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT face=Verdana
size=4><o:p> [B] The point
of the cite is that some of the premises used in various statements of
the problem of evil rest upon observations. To the extent they rest
upon observations, they are not absolutely true. That is not in
dispute. The theory of gravity also rests on observations as does the
statement "Evil exists." Though either statement may not be
absolutely true, the probability of the statement that evil exists is about the
same as that of the statement when an apple falls from a tree,
barring a strong wind, it will fall earthward.</o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT face=Verdana
size=4><o:p>[3] The problem of evil is quite simple
despite centuries of Christian Apologists trying to obscure it. In
debating this matter with others including you, I don't give a rat's ass what
Plantinga says. An appeal to authority is unnecessary/irrelevant in this
matter. Arguments are made. You can dispute the validity of the
structure of the arguments and/or the truth of their premises. It is not
rocket science. Neither is any reference to some obscure/mysterious "basic
epistemic analysis" is needed.</o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT face=Verdana
size=4><o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT face=Verdana size=4><o:p>You
write:</o:p></FONT></SPAN></P><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT
face=Verdana size=4><o:p>
<P class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">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.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P></o:p></FONT></SPAN>
<P><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT face=Verdana size=4><o:p>The
above is a most instructive paragraph. You are using the word "induction"
in a quite mysterious, unorthodox way. In ordinary language induction
the word is used by logicians, scientists, lay people, etc
thusly: Observations are made, hypotheses are constructed, expected
observations are deduced from the hypotheses, tests are made to determine if the
expected observations occur. How is the induction you speak of
different? Is there some mysterious element that is missing from the
above? Is there something involved more than creative thinking, reason,
and observation in the ordinary usage of these words? Are you and a small
number of people in on some secret denied to the rest of us which allows you to
know some other reality in some other way? </o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT face=Verdana size=4><o:p>What I
really suspect here and the reason I said that your statement was instructive,
is that Christ Church pundits sometimes use words apparently in their
ordinary meaning but, when called on their results, demonstrate
that they are using them otherwise than in their ordinary way.
This is fraudulent linguistic chicanery. An
example:</o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT face=Verdana size=4><o:p>In
ordinary language when referring to philosophers, etc, the term "rationalist" is
used to refer to those that believe that reason is the primary source of
knowledge -- Descartes, Leibnitz, Spinoza, Kant, etc. The term
"rationalist" distinguishes these and similar thinkers from the empiricists --
Hobbes, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, etc -- those who consider the source of knowledge
to be observation used in conjunction with reason.</o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT face=Verdana size=4><o:p>When
Christ Church pundits use the term "rationalist", it apparently means anyone,
who like these pundits, uses observation and reason but who in doing so reaches
conclusions incompatible with Christ Church dogma.</o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT face=Verdana size=4><o:p>I
suspect that your disingenuous use of "induction" is more of the same. If
you mean "intuition", just say so. Them we can explore the fruitfulness of
using such a method to prove knowledge claims. If your meaning
of induction includes "more" than what was described in my simple model earlier
or the simpler yet summary above, tells what this "more" is, and give evidence
that the statements asserting the existence of this "more" are true.
Anyone can spin conjectures and fantasies. Anyone can make up fancy
sounding but obscuring/unfathomably vague words. Supporting these
efforts as knowledge claims with reasoning <STRONG>AND </STRONG>evidence is
another matter.</o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT face=Verdana
size=4><o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT face=Verdana size=4><o:p>Slight
change of subject: Two questions (one is multi-part) for
you:</o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT face=Verdana
size=4><o:p>[Q1] In practice when Christ
Church pundits (and other Christian Apologists/Advocates) make
knowledge claims about their alleged god, they support these claims with
quotations from the bible. What words in the bible assert that your
alleged god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent?</o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT face=Verdana
size=4><o:p>[Q2] Suppose you were presented with a statement
of the problem of evil whose premises were as highly probable as any premises
based on observation could be. Suppose further, that the arguments in this
statement of the problem of evil were all demonstratively
valid.</o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT face=Verdana size=4><o:p>Would
you then admit that the assertion of the existence of an omnipotent,
omnibenevolent being leads to a contradiction, and thus any alleged
instantiation of same is logically improbable/impossible? In other words
would you accept the results of true premises/valid arguments which demonstrated
the improbability/impossibility of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent
being?</o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT face=Verdana size=4><o:p>Given
the knowledge claim that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being exists,
what kind <STRONG><FONT size=5><FONT color=#0000ff>possible</FONT> evidence, if
any, <FONT color=#0000ff>could</FONT> provide <FONT
color=#0000ff>disconfirmation</FONT></FONT></STRONG> of this
claim?</o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT face=Verdana
size=4><o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT face=Verdana size=4><o:p>You may
answer these questions in separate emails if you like (although the answer to
[Q1] should be a piece of cake for one of your background). Both questions
are straight forward and simple. Please do not rephrase them, ignore them,
or answer some other questions other than what was asked. Please answer
Both questions are open-ended, not "Yes" or "No"; please try not to avoid
the issues, but answer them as asked. Please, for the sake of my
slow-wittedness, answer each separately and indicate which question you are
addressing by using [Q1] and [Q2]. Thank you.</o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT face=Verdana size=4><o:p>{As an
aside: Perhaps you do not realize this, but when you use beginning and
ending quotation marks instead ordinary ones, you make your emails
difficult to impossible to read for some users. Some systems do not
contain those characters in their character set and thus
generate unpredictable results (sometimes deleting parts of your
messages).}</o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT face=Verdana size=4><o:p><BR>Art
Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<BR><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A><BR></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P></DIV></BODY></HTML>