Timeline for What is the burden of proof? Has this principle ever been challenged?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 13, 2023 at 12:51 | comment | added | Scott Rowe | I'm willing to accept that reason cannot reach to some claims. However, I don't want little children designing airplane engines, power grids and railway control systems, performing surgery... | |
| Nov 12, 2023 at 21:45 | comment | added | J D | @NotThatGuy To be fair, and I read from stem to stern, I concede did use the phrasing. "faith is an argument" which was intended as an ellision of "(Have) Faith (because X) is an argument." I played fast and sloppy with both senses of faith (as an epistemological disposition and as a conclusion by way of fideism) in my construction, and I apologize for the confusion. | |
| Nov 12, 2023 at 20:31 | comment | added | NotThatGuy | @JD "I never said faith was an argument" - you said "faith is an argument"... and said the same in your answer, in different words ("[a convincing argument is] called faith"). But I didn't say you consider faith to be a good or sound argument. If you accept it isn't an argument, then you might want to edit your answer appropriately. This may sound like nitpicking, but most people who appeal to faith seem to think simply saying "I have faith" is a sufficient argument for believing something without sufficient evidence, but in reality it's merely asserting that they hold such a belief. | |
| Nov 12, 2023 at 20:20 | comment | added | J D | @NotThatGuy I never said faith was an argument. I said theologians put forth arguments for faith. When you get that straight, you'll understand that my post does not endorse faith, but merely concedes that there are arguments for and against faith, and the rejection of faith without consideration of arguments for it is a bias, not a well-thought out position. | |
| Nov 12, 2023 at 18:10 | comment | added | NotThatGuy | @JD Faith is not an argument any more than "this apple is red" is an argument against "this apple is blue". It's merely an opposing position. You may be able to make an argument for why the apple is red (why you should use faith), but simply asserting that it's red is not an argument. And, like I said, most people just assert that faith should be used without an argument for why. Well, okay, many say a book says so, which I'll concede could technically be considered an argument, it would just be a very poor one. | |
| Nov 12, 2023 at 18:00 | comment | added | J D | @NotThatGuy Yeah, you'd be right except for the fact for 1,000 years, there's an entire body of argumentation of why faith is an argument against the burden of proof. You reject the conclusion of fideists, but it's not an open debate on whether one can make arguments for it. I'm an atheist, so I give little credence to faith. But that doesn't entitle me to conclude that the logical arguments supporting the adoption of faith are meaningless or non-existent. They just don't persuade me, and I'd be an ass to dismiss all of theology as irrational. | |
| Nov 12, 2023 at 17:40 | comment | added | NotThatGuy | Faith is not an argument against the burden of proof. At most it's merely stating that someone doesn't apply the burden of proof to some claims. Faith tends to just be asserted to be part of one's epistemology, rather than people trying to justify why faith should be used. | |
| Nov 12, 2023 at 17:38 | comment | added | Meanach | How so? Perhaps you might post an answer? | |
| Nov 12, 2023 at 15:57 | comment | added | MichaelK | @Meanach No, of course "You have to take it on faith, faith is a good thing" is not a sound argument against the principle. But it is — definitely — a challenge to the principle. | |
| Nov 12, 2023 at 15:27 | comment | added | Meanach | I would be interested in an actual answer that uses Wittgenstein to justify theism. | |
| Nov 12, 2023 at 15:10 | comment | added | J D | Oh, and if you have any doubt, just review Philosophical Investigations and the notion of the language-game. It prefigures the modern psychologism's interpretation of logic and reason and the normativity that inheres to all language. It will make it easier to deal with understanding intersubjectivity, theory-laddenness, and the basis for accepting non-classical logic when you get to those topics. | |
| Nov 12, 2023 at 15:05 | comment | added | J D | @Meanach On the narrow reading of the argument, true enough. But an argument is a rhetorical speech act, not a logical structure expressed in a concrete syntax. The latter view is the narrow view, and a wise man understands and uses both definitions of argument. | |
| Nov 12, 2023 at 14:59 | comment | added | Meanach | This is not an argument. But have it your way | |
| Nov 12, 2023 at 14:47 | comment | added | J D | I'd add that the freedom to doubt God is a relatively newly sanctioned social rite in Western Europe, and the reason why the Freemasons were a secret society for a long time was because Occam's Razor was often seen as treason against the King and the kingdom. | |
| Nov 12, 2023 at 14:41 | history | answered | J D | CC BY-SA 4.0 |