|
Noraaron
|
|
Posted 07/02/12 at 12:53 AM
|
Reply with quote
#1
|
|
Just curious, was reading the "if god was proven to not exist, what would you do?" thread..
And it ooccured to me that i was never sure if Theism, well keeping it simple, belief in the Christian god was a considered on the whole by philosophers etc...as a "Justified True belief"
It seems to tick most of the criteria that would make it one, with the exception of scientific evidence.
There are good arguments, historical evidence, The scenario of the universe and life the way it is, seems to be more set up for such a entity.
Or is it that theism is not a "Justified True Belief"?
So what is the consensus amongst philosophy... is it a Justified true belief?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
noseeum
|
|
Posted 07/02/12 at 01:21 AM
|
Reply with quote
#2
|
|
I can only say what my judgement is, but I doubt there are many on either side of theism/atheism which would consider the other point of view to be justified and true. Those that are more neutral are more likely to say that neither positions are outright justified, true beliefs rather than both. There may be philosophers on both sides who believe that it is in principle possible that theism could be justified, but there would also be those who don't think so (including theists).
So to answer your question, there is no consensus is philosophy that "god exists" is a justified, true belief. That is to say, justified true belief is usually considered the definition of knowledge, and there's no consensus that theism is true.
Another question would be to consider whether theism is rational. I think this is a different question, perhaps a more interesting one.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Noraaron
|
|
Posted 07/02/12 at 05:20 AM
|
Reply with quote
#3
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by noseeum
I can only say what my judgement is, but I doubt there are many on either side of theism/atheism which would consider the other point of view to be justified and true. Those that are more neutral are more likely to say that neither positions are outright justified, true beliefs rather than both. There may be philosophers on both sides who believe that it is in principle possible that theism could be justified, but there would also be those who don't think so (including theists).
So to answer your question, there is no consensus is philosophy that "god exists" is a justified, true belief. That is to say, justified true belief is usually considered the definition of knowledge, and there's no consensus that theism is true.
Another question would be to consider whether theism is rational. I think this is a different question, perhaps a more interesting one.
It is strange, because once you include miracles it suddenly looks irrational to think these supernatural events occurred given what we observe with science.
Makes me wonder how much the miracle claims could hurt theism as being a Rationale belief?
I dont believe in Christianity because of miracles, well i dont think so....but it is hard to say if they where not there, would i believe? I like to think i dont, but non the less a very important part.
But, if i dont include miracles the whole point seems moot as the hope is in conquering death and suffering which can only happen through miraculous means.
Obviously Miracles had to be shown at some point in history so god could put on the table what he if offering us, and that he is the real deal.
It is strange how the most unbelievable thing is what we should have our hope in for, not the most reasonable.
But as everyone, even alot of atheist hope for a end of suffering i would imagine they might even be in a similar un-reasonable hope/belief as the theist when it comes to hoping for a end to suffering.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
AtheisticSeeker
|
|
Posted 07/02/12 at 12:18 PM
|
Reply with quote
#4
|
|
|
The way I understand it, *some* philosophers hold the ontological argument (or some variation thereof) to be sound. And if it is, then God not only exists, but exists necessarily. However, as far as I know, all claims about Jesus and the Christian God are based on probability & historical data. There is no argument that claims, "And necessarily, Jesus is God.."
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Fhbradley
|
|
Posted 07/02/12 at 12:24 PM
|
Reply with quote
#5
|
|
Well that would just be to ask
1) Do I believe in Theism?
2) Is Theism true?
3) Can I give good reasons for believing in Theism?
But note even if the 3 conditions were jointly satisfied, it would still not be an instance of knowledge. Gettier showed this to be case in his famous paper. Of course there are numerous examples. I like the one Russell gave.
Imagine that you see a clock and it reads '12:00'. Consequently, you come to believe the proposition "It is now 12:00 o'clock". However, the clock was really not working all along because it was broken. This means
1) You believe it is now 12:00 o'clock
2) It is true that it is now 12:00 o'clock
3) You have justified reasons for believing it is now 12:00 o'clock
3 is true because every time you have ever read a clock, it was more or less accurate. There was no overriding proposition that made you unjustified in believing it is now 12:00 o'clock.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Fhbradley
|
|
Posted 07/02/12 at 12:28 PM
|
Reply with quote
#6
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by AtheisticSeeker
The way I understand it, *some* philosophers hold the ontological argument (or some variation thereof) to be sound. And if it is, then God not only exists, but exists necessarily. However, as far as I know, all claims about Jesus and the Christian God are based on probability & historical data. There is no argument that claims, "And necessarily, Jesus is God.."
No [Christian] philosopher has ever said such a thing. The ontological argument, if sound, only proves a generic God, not Jesus. Also, you must note that the argument is sound only in a particular system of modal logic, namely system S5 (and different variations of it also, if I'm not mistaken). The basic idea is this,
If it is possibly necessary that p, then necessarily p
If you accept this axiom into your system of logic, the ontological argument will be valid. Also, it would also follow that numbers, sets, propositions, and all other abstract exist necessarily too. But you could get out of that by saying such notions contain contradictions. That being said, modal logic makes the world a very crowded place. How many possible fat man are in the doorway?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
AtheisticSeeker
|
|
Posted 07/02/12 at 12:39 PM
|
Reply with quote
#7
|
|
Right. I never said any of the ontological arguments proved the Christian God.
All claims about Jesus are evidential. A priori, ontological-type arguments can only get you to Deism.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Fhbradley
|
|
Posted 07/02/12 at 12:48 PM
|
Reply with quote
#8
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by AtheisticSeeker
Right. I never said any of the ontological arguments proved the Christian God.
All claims about Jesus are evidential. A priori, ontological-type arguments can only get you to Deism.
Sorry, I misconstrued what you wrote.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
emailestthoume
|
|
Posted 07/02/12 at 12:50 PM
|
Reply with quote
#9
|
|
Quote: Or is it that theism is not a "Justified True Belief"?
This seems to depend on the question: "is theism true?"
So the question which must first be decided, it seems to me is the latter. So then, ultimately, this is not a question of justified belief, but a question of the truth value of theism.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
