Comments on: Breathtaking historical ignorance watch http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/2009/10/25/breathtaking-historical-ignorance-watch/ Best blog name ever Wed, 18 Jan 2012 07:27:09 -0500 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.2 By: Chris Hallquist http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/2009/10/25/breathtaking-historical-ignorance-watch/comment-page-1/#comment-5781 Chris Hallquist Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:32:23 +0000 http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/?p=805#comment-5781 That's a tidy historical narrative, but it can't possibly be right--plenty of the religious thinkers I listed above were not (and in the case of Swinburne and Craig, are not) classical foundationalists. The practice of providing arguments for your positions on intellectual questions is very old, at least as old as Plato, and I suspect it's a human universal. The general habit of arguing for beliefs suggests most people believe something like "there are a lot of things you shouldn't believe without having reasons for doing so," a position much weaker than classical foundationalism, but which makes sense of the need many people see to present arguments for and against the existence of God. That’s a tidy historical narrative, but it can’t possibly be right–plenty of the religious thinkers I listed above were not (and in the case of Swinburne and Craig, are not) classical foundationalists. The practice of providing arguments for your positions on intellectual questions is very old, at least as old as Plato, and I suspect it’s a human universal. The general habit of arguing for beliefs suggests most people believe something like “there are a lot of things you shouldn’t believe without having reasons for doing so,” a position much weaker than classical foundationalism, but which makes sense of the need many people see to present arguments for and against the existence of God.

]]> By: Joshua Blanchard http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/2009/10/25/breathtaking-historical-ignorance-watch/comment-page-1/#comment-5734 Joshua Blanchard Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:55:49 +0000 http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/?p=805#comment-5734 I agree that the statement is ignorant, even a dodge of the issues (instead of admitting God can't be proven, it's easier to complain about framing). But there is an interesting historical correlate behind the quote, whether the author intends it or not. Some philosophers, such as Linda Zagzebski in her historical introduction to Phil religion, put the blame on Descartes for setting up the false framework of classical foundationalism, which is the context in which the need to "prove" the existence of God arises. It seems that although we've largely abandoned epistemic foundationalism, we haven't abandoned the leftover requirements on theists. I agree that the statement is ignorant, even a dodge of the issues (instead of admitting God can’t be proven, it’s easier to complain about framing).

But there is an interesting historical correlate behind the quote, whether the author intends it or not. Some philosophers, such as Linda Zagzebski in her historical introduction to Phil religion, put the blame on Descartes for setting up the false framework of classical foundationalism, which is the context in which the need to “prove” the existence of God arises. It seems that although we’ve largely abandoned epistemic foundationalism, we haven’t abandoned the leftover requirements on theists.

]]> By: proudfootz http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/2009/10/25/breathtaking-historical-ignorance-watch/comment-page-1/#comment-5685 proudfootz Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:02:02 +0000 http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/?p=805#comment-5685 This is a part of the whole 'new atheist' meme which seems to have sprouted up. It seems the theists are determined to portray atheism as merely a fad or a fashion that has no historical roots and no future. The only thing that's 'new' about today's atheists is the fact that for a brief time in the history of the world one can say out loud that they do not believe in *any* gods without being killed immediately for saying such a thing. This opportunity might not last forever, either. This is a part of the whole ‘new atheist’ meme which seems to have sprouted up.

It seems the theists are determined to portray atheism as merely a fad or a fashion that has no historical roots and no future.

The only thing that’s ‘new’ about today’s atheists is the fact that for a brief time in the history of the world one can say out loud that they do not believe in *any* gods without being killed immediately for saying such a thing.

This opportunity might not last forever, either.

]]>