tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post1693345440916045759..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: The Problem of the CriterionRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-13203292550981382352010-07-01T14:51:13.179-04:002010-07-01T14:51:13.179-04:00Peter,
I appreciate the comments about vicious vs...Peter,<br /><br />I appreciate the comments about vicious vs. gracious circular reasoning, for indeed this is the heart of the debate when it comes to epistemological issues and how they relate to issues of ultimacy. Everybody reasons in a circle ultimately, but the difference between "us" and "them" is that we do so with justification, they do so without.Dusmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18050174688923887698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-15461882868739931612010-07-01T14:23:47.002-04:002010-07-01T14:23:47.002-04:00I agree that this is a helpful post. And one othe...I agree that this is a helpful post. And one other thing to keep in mind is that not all circles are vicious. In fact, everyone who delves into axioms must recognize that we begin with circular reasoning. This is true no matter what field we study, including mathematics (which some secularists consider to be the most solidly "true" field).<br /><br />Of course, when one gets to circular reasoning, one must have a circle that is sufficient to form the rest of one's beliefs. That's why when I discuss things with my atheist friends, I always have them try to defend where logic and morality come from in their secular views, and then I point out how I couldn't care less if I violated *THAT* kind of logic/morality as it's toothless logic/morality (and most of my atheist friends have agreed that it is ultimately arbitrary). On the other hand, my defense of logic and morality (coming from the attributes of God) *has* teeth.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-35234781833481967602010-07-01T13:57:17.660-04:002010-07-01T13:57:17.660-04:00Chisolm: "What few philosophers have had the...<b>Chisolm</b>: <i>"What few philosophers have had the courage to recognize is this: we can deal with the problem only by begging the question. It seems to me that, if we do recognize this fact, as we should, then it is unseemly for us to try to pretend that it isn't so."</i><br /><br />That's a huge insight.<br /><br />I wonder how this ties in with "foundationalism" or with "soft foundationalism".Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-50928187680392358392010-07-01T13:57:00.924-04:002010-07-01T13:57:00.924-04:00Interesting post. I think one requires an omniscie...Interesting post. I think <a href="http://unapologetica.blogspot.com/2009/11/short-theistic-argument-worth.html" rel="nofollow">one requires an omniscient source</a> in order to justify his belief in any proposition.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-23923889363805845592010-07-01T12:41:50.215-04:002010-07-01T12:41:50.215-04:00Dear Dusman,
This was a very helpful and illumina...Dear Dusman,<br /><br />This was a very helpful and illuminating post!Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.com