Best Non-PGR Department

[philstudent1991]

Really? Does the name Alvin Plantinga mean nothing to you? Haha, sorry, but there are a lot of religious epistemologists, a lot of whom produce good work. And some who don't. Just like normal fields.

Haha yes I've heard of him I imagine he does good stuff. I just hear stuff from time to time about Baylor being a rough place for academics in general. They gave intelligent design proponent William Dembksi a big position in their science faculty, for instance. I'm just personally of the opinion that religious epistemology is ironic because religious ideas are faith based, and epistemology is anti-faith I mean it has to be. Faith is the acceptance of certain ideas in full knowledge that they can not be categorically proven. But there are plenty of religious people that are excellent philosophers I'm not saying anything about that

[stressedout]

Yes, it's not as bad as it could be. But I just don't understand the need to go around trying to put other people (or schools) down. There are many people (or worldviews) with whom I disagree but I neither want nor need to  make pithy, negative statements about them. I usually find that I'm inclined to put others down for their beliefs only if I'm feeling insecure myself.

 

That said, if someone has a good objection and wants to go about things in a serious manner, go ahead. That's philosophy (though it would still be entirely irrelevant to this site and suited more for PM).  

 

"good objection" in a "serious manner" aye?  Ask TheEstablishment.  He's a reasonable person who will engage you in a serious manner with good objections, or so I hear.

[Dabaliga]

Yes, it's not as bad as it could be. But I just don't understand the need to go around trying to put other people (or schools) down. There are many people (or worldviews) with whom I disagree but I neither want nor need to  make pithy, negative statements about them. I usually find that I'm inclined to put others down for their beliefs only if I'm feeling insecure myself.

 

That said, if someone has a good objection and wants to go about things in a serious manner, go ahead. That's philosophy (though it would still be entirely irrelevant to this site and suited more for PM).  

upvote

[Wait For It...]

Haha yes I've heard of him I imagine he does good stuff. I just hear stuff from time to time about Baylor being a rough place for academics in general. They gave intelligent design proponent William Dembksi a big position in their science faculty, for instance. I'm just personally of the opinion that religious epistemology is ironic because religious ideas are faith based, and epistemology is anti-faith I mean it has to be. Faith is the acceptance of certain ideas in full knowledge that they can not be categorically proven. But there are plenty of religious people that are excellent philosophers I'm not saying anything about that

Thanks the response. I'll say just a few more things. Epistemology concerns questions about the nature of knowledge and justification, whether we have knowledge, whether we are justified holding certain beliefs, and so on. I don't see how any of that is could be incompatible with Christianity (or other any other religion). And I know no Christian philosopher who'd accept your definition of "faith." I'd be curious to know whether you can find some serious Christian philosophers who adhere to that definition. Also, Dembski has two PhDs (mathematics and philosophy) and has done some good work. One might not like ID, but one must reckon with the work of ID theorists and avoid rejection their conclusions outright---general point, not saying you reject conclusions outright. And for what it's worth, Dembski left the Baylor position a long time ago. 

[dgswaim]

Haha yes I've heard of him I imagine he does good stuff. I just hear stuff from time to time about Baylor being a rough place for academics in general. They gave intelligent design proponent William Dembksi a big position in their science faculty, for instance. I'm just personally of the opinion that religious epistemology is ironic because religious ideas are faith based, and epistemology is anti-faith I mean it has to be. Faith is the acceptance of certain ideas in full knowledge that they can not be categorically proven. But there are plenty of religious people that are excellent philosophers I'm not saying anything about that

There are a number of problems with this statement relative to religious epistemology, and epistemology in general. I won't address them here. As to Dembski and ID, they gave Dembski a big appointment to head-up the Polanyi center for ID research, and then a bunch of anti-ID types (both from within Baylor and from elsewhere) took up arms against the center and Dembski was essentially forced out of the university. I think it's a stronger indictment against Baylor that they forced this scholar out based on academic controversy than that they gave him the appointment in the first place.

Edited April 14, 2014 by dgswaim

[Hopephily]

...and epistemology is anti-faith I mean it has to be. Faith is the acceptance of certain ideas in full knowledge that they can not be categorically proven. 

 

If by "faith" you mean the above, then I'm not sure epistemology is anti-faith. 

[Wait For It...]

If by "faith" you mean the above, then I'm not sure epistemology is anti-faith. 

Yes. 

[stressedout]

If by "faith" you mean the above, then I'm not sure epistemology is anti-faith. 

 

Lol.  This.

[dgswaim]

There's something wrong with the idea that faith is "the acceptance of certain ideas in full knowledge that they can't be proven," too. Many people maintain their faith claims based on certain evidential moorings. It seems to me that this is all anyone can expect from an individual relative to any claimed belief set. 

[Dabaliga]

I feel like faith and epistemology are both being talked about today, even earlier today they were too.  Also I feel like the faith is on one hand and epistemolgy are on the other hand too, but that it probably just because of my religious upbringing and how I just personally feel about it (its hard to tell).   However, only someone who is completely biased toward non-epistemology would deny out of hand the possiblity that faith and epistemology cannot both make it to the top where all the faith come in.  Plus my uncle has faith, but his parents both had epistemology so that, by itself, proves that one doesn't just need to believe what one's parents (or other relatives) are already teaching, or else why did he be so different? 

[dgswaim]

I feel like faith and epistemology are both being talked about today, even earlier today they were too.  Also I feel like the faith is on one hand and epistemolgy are on the other hand too, but that it probably just because of my religious upbringing and how I just personally feel about it (its hard to tell).   However, only someone who is completely biased toward non-epistemology would deny out of hand the possiblity that faith and epistemology cannot both make it to the top where all the faith come in.  Plus my uncle has faith, but his parents both had epistemology so that, by itself, proves that one doesn't just need to believe what one's parents (or other relatives) are already teaching, or else why did he be so different? 

If I had epistemology, then why is it that, at the end of the day, I always be wondering about stuff. I mean, faith is good and stuff, but sometimes I'm all like, "I don't even know." You know? I feel like I just need to relax. 

[philstudent1991]

I think some people on here enjoy an argument. Nothing wrong with that of course. I think many religious people accept some of their ideas on faith, in full knowledge that they cannot be categorically proven. Nothing controversial about that. Very few religious people would say that they can prove that God exists or whatever, because they know they can't. And they are welcome to believe in whatever they want. But faith doesn't have any role in philosophy.

[dgswaim]

I think some people on here enjoy an argument. Nothing wrong with that of course. I think many religious people accept some of their ideas on faith, in full knowledge that they cannot be categorically proven. Nothing controversial about that. Very few religious people would say that they can prove that God exists or whatever, because they know they can't. And they are welcome to believe in whatever they want. But faith doesn't have any role in philosophy.

There's little sense in speaking on whether or not one can "prove" the existence of God. So far as I can tell, philosophers have great difficulty in "proving" the existence of the external world, the objective existence of abstract mathematical objects, the broad coherence of various sentences in scientific theories insofar as they are understood to accurately track reality, and so on. So insofar as demonstrable "proofs" are concerned, it seems the existence of God is on equal footing with these various concepts. The question, then, isn't one of "proving" the existence of God (or whatever), but rather a question of evaluating all of the available evidence (whatever one might count as evidence) in support of or against God's existence (or whatever). I, along with many others, feel that the evidence better supports the existence of God than it's denial. This represents a pattern of inductive inference, not a proof.

[Establishment]

There's something wrong with the idea that faith is "the acceptance of certain ideas in full knowledge that they can't be proven," too. Many people maintain their faith claims based on certain evidential moorings. It seems to me that this is all anyone can expect from an individual relative to any claimed belief set.

 

In the wise words of Kierkegaard qua Johannes Climacus,

 

For whose sake is the proof furnished? Faith has no need of it, indeed must even consider it its enemy.

 

I assume now the opposite, that the enemies have succeeded in demonstrating what they wish regarding the Scriptures, with a certainty surpassing the most ardent desire of the rankest foe – what then? Has the enemy abolished Christianity? Not at all. Has he harmed the believer? Not at all, not in the least. Has he won the right to disown responsibility for not being a believer? Not at all. That is to say, just because these books are not by those authors, are not authentic, are not integri, are not inspired (though, being an object of faith, this cannot be disproved), it does not follow that these authors have not existed and, above all, that Christ has not existed. To that extent, the believer is still just as free to accept it, just as free. Let us heed this well. For if he accepted it on the strength of a demonstration he would already be on the point of abandoning faith.

 

In any case, I'm not sure who Wait For It...'s post was directed at, but just to explain myself: I grew up in Texas and so I'm rather familiar with Southern Baptists, and I've had some interaction with Baylor's PhD program. I'd frankly be surprised to see Baylor's program make it into the top-50, but I'm willing to stand corrected if the time comes. But that's neither here nor there. I just wanted to clarify. I'm not religion-bashing, or bashing religiously inclined individuals. I'd be in an awful predicament, as someone with a faith, to do so.

 

What I am doing however, is having some fun at the expense of the Baptists; for hopefully obvious reasons, much as I'd poke fun at Intelligent Design advocates without any concern for presenting "professional arguments." So, my apologies to stressedout, who is apparently still rustled from the other thread.

 

Which by the way,

 

One might not like ID, but one must reckon with the work of ID theorists and avoid rejection their conclusions outright

 

is terrifying to read. Intelligent Design (as a self-purported evidence-based scientific theory) is uncontroversially laughable, and the suggestion that one must "reckon with the work of ID theorists" just baffles me.

Edited April 14, 2014 by Establishment

[dgswaim]

Ol' Kierk. Never been my cup 'o' tea as a philosopher or theologian. "Fear and Trembling" has some cool parts, though.

 

 

Interestingly, I took a minor in theology as an undergrad, and one of the courses I took was a seminar in Christian Existentialism. We read lots of Kierkegaard, Tillich, Unamuno, and that sort of thing. To be honest... I don't really get the whole "existentialism" thing. None of it made much sense to me. Kierkegaard perhaps least of all.

[Establishment]

Ol' Kierk. Never been my cup 'o' tea as a philosopher or theologian. "Fear and Trembling" has some cool parts, though.

 

 

Interestingly, I took a minor in theology as an undergrad, and one of the courses I took was a seminar in Christian Existentialism. We read lots of Kierkegaard, Tillich, Unamuno, and that sort of thing. To be honest... I don't really get the whole "existentialism" thing. None of it made much sense to me. Kierkegaard perhaps least of all.

 

I don't get existentialism either. A bunch of hogwash if you ask me. But Kierkegaard is exactly my kind of heroin.

[dgswaim]

I don't get existentialism either. A bunch of hogwash if you ask me. But Kierkegaard is exactly my kind of heroin.

"Shoot some of this and it'll teleologically suspend the sphere of the ethical."

[stressedout]

What I am doing however, is having some fun at the expense of the Baptists; for hopefully obvious reasons, much as I'd poke fun at Intelligent Design advocates without any concern for presenting "professional arguments." So, my apologies to stressedout, who is apparently still rustled from the other thread.

 

Don't know what Southern Baptists or ID has to do with me, but I'm just having fun at your expense. But I'm not apologizing for it