Recent Responses
One popular take on religious belief is that it can only be arrived at through faith, rather than considerations of evidence or reasons. Even admitting there to be a paucity of evidence in favor of god's existence, we are to suppose that one may legitimately believe in him nonetheless. A theist who not only holds this view about, but claims to believe in god in precisely this way, would then seem to claim something like the following: "Although I recognize there to be insufficient evidence for the existence of god, I still believe in him." I want to ask whether we can really take this claim at face value. Set aside the question of whether religious belief is justified from an objective standpoint, and ask whether it is really coherent for someone to genuinely believe both (1) that X, and (2) that there is insufficient evidence for belief in X. To me this notion has a paradoxical flavor, and I wonder if what is really going on in here is something else entirely. That is, I wonder whether theists of the sort in question actually <i>do</i> take themselves to have sufficient evidence or reasons for belief in god. (In that case, what they are really claiming in their talk of faith is that anti-theistic arguments are generally insufficient to defeat said evidence or reasons.)
Andrew Pessin
February 10, 2011
(changed February 10, 2011)
Permalink
Great question! ... Several terms could use more careful specification/definition, esp. the notion of "sufficient" evidence, not to mention "evidence" itself for that matter ... One route might be to explore "comparative confidence" -- eg Descartes claimed via his ontological argument (Me... Read more
I have a meta-dispute with my nephew about whether a dispute over a loan is a financial issue or a moral one. I would like to hear from a professional philosopher whether or not I am correct in framing that meta-dispute as a moral issue. The fundamental dispute is this: my nephew has had to file for personal bankruptcy twice, and in 2009 had got himself into deep debt again. No institution was willing to loan him money. He now needed $10,000 to avoid bankruptcy. He approached his mother and me, asking to borrow that amount from my mothers (his grandmother's) savings. My mother approved lending the money provided he agreed to pay it back in a regular manner. I was given the task of deciding what was a regular manner. He agreed to the deal that I would write checks to his creditors provided he signed a promise to begin paying the money back at an agreed-upon rate in January 2010. The checks were written, the promise written out and signed. It was not notarized. He never paid anything on the loan. He claimed inability. We did not press him for money. (It should be noted that he has been diagnosed bipolar, but not severely so. He is given to overconfidence, which is largely responsible for his financial record. I can then be faulted for expecting him to repay, but that is not the issue.) Recently he announced that he is restarting his life and is about to make a lot of money in a real estate deal (he is a Realtor). I asked him to include a restoration of his honor by signing a new promise - one he could actually pay on. I argue that the original deal was that I (representing his family) pay his debts and he sign a promise and keep it. Since he had signed a promise and not kept it, he had violated a moral principle. We (the family) would now forgive that if he would sign and keep a new promise, following up on the agreement to exchange such a promise for the loan. We are not demanding a specific amount of money, knowing that he is currently in severe financial difficulties again. The point is that we want him to maintain his ethical standing with respect to us by signing a new promise and keeping it. He claims that the issue is not moral, and that he owes us money and nothing else. Since he believes that he will soon be able to repay the loan in full, he is not obligated to renew the promise to pay over time. I believe that the moral point of keeping a promise is a separate point. I want him to recognize his ethical commitment, even if the amount he pays regularly is insignificant. $20 a month has been suggested. He responds that he will pay the $20/month "to make you happy," but recognizes no moral obligation to sign a promise, and refuses to do so. Is this a moral argument? If so, who is in the right?
Sean Greenberg
February 10, 2011
(changed February 10, 2011)
Permalink
This is a dicey question, especially in light of the fraught family situation. All would be clearer if the original schedule to pay had been notarized and had, therefore been effectively made into a contract, in which case this would be a relatively straightforward case of contract law-... Read more
In the effect to come to knowledge about reality that is the truth about "how things are or came to be," What role if any should religious authorities ( such as one's minister or priest) or religious writings (such as the Old Testament or the Koran) play in helping to determine the truth?
Sean Greenberg
February 10, 2011
(changed February 10, 2011)
Permalink
In order to determine what role, if any, religion generally should play in knowledge about "how things are or came to be," it is essential first to know just what 'things' are at issue. For example, it seems to me that if the 'things' in question are truths about morality, then religion... Read more
I have a question regarding folk philosophy and academic philosophy. How far are the folks away from the academics in terms of agreement in certain issues? I read an interview of Philippa Foot and she said something along the lines of "moral relativism is common in first year students." When I read the philpapers survey, a whole bunch of you are moral realists. How far are us folk off? How far away are we from you academics in all types of issues? If you can direct me to some reading that any folk can easily access, I would be very thankful. Perhaps anecdotes would be nice, but I have a feeling you folks don't hold anecdotes much weight!
Sean Greenberg
February 10, 2011
(changed February 10, 2011)
Permalink
One often finds philosophers appealing to the intuitions of the 'folk', or, as an earlier strand of Anglo-American philosophy put it, the views of 'the man on the Clapham omnibus'. Such appeals play a variety of roles in philosophizing--they can be used as the basis for a position that... Read more
Is there a philosophical reason to postulate the existence of entities without parts? It seems like everything in our experience is complex and has various pieces and parts or can be reduced to a more fundamental entity given scientific exploration; what reason is there for thinking that there is something that is non-reducible?
Sean Greenberg
February 10, 2011
(changed February 10, 2011)
Permalink
Here's an argument that the early modern philosophy Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz gives for postulating the existence of an entity without parts, versions of which he gave from the 'middle' of his philosophical career--roughly, from about the time that he wrote the "Discourse on Metaphysics"... Read more
Are there "authentic" desires that lie beneath socially formed desires? For example, two hundred years ago, most women probably did not want to live like today's women do. This is often assumed to be a product of cultural indoctrination; clearly, the average woman's opinions today are vastly different. Yet how are the opinions of today's women more authentic? How can we differentiate authentic from indoctrinated preferences?
Andrew Pessin
February 8, 2011
(changed February 8, 2011)
Permalink
Not just "indoctrinated" -- many these days will argue that much about our cognitive/mental lives is shaped by evolution, and surely "desires" would be prime candidates for such. If (say) having a certain set of desires or certain modes of desiring is ultimately "selected for" by evolution... Read more
People often talk as though their thoughts were a constant stream of an inner voice speaking aloud in their heads. I find this strange, because unless I am rehearsing what I want to say or write, or am trying to imagine a debate between two or more people, there aren't ever any voices in my head. When I think about things, the thoughts aren't verbal; they're just there, both like weighted, kinetic mechanisms and like colors at once. I don't think: "Today I have to feed the cat, read Wittgenstein and do the dishes, and I would like to find the time to watch a movie with my girlfriend." That would be bizarre. The thoughts are just there, maybe flashes of cats and the word "Wittgenstein" and some vague notions of duty and cleaning and my girlfriend's name. I know them, without hearing them or seeing them written. So why do people talk as though there were a voice in their heads? I thought only schizophrenics heard voices.
Andrew Pessin
February 8, 2011
(changed February 8, 2011)
Permalink
well, SOME thoughts are 'inner monologues," it seems; especially the most articulated, clearest thoughts we have; so it seems reasonable to treat that as a significant category of "thoughts". Or at least they SEEM to be articulated verbally, even if not out loud; your point that they are n... Read more
It appears that all ethical theories are vulnerable to the challenge that their values, whatever they are, are products of cultural relativity. Since nobody can transcend his/her culture, is the only answer to shrug our shoulders and say, "So what? In this culture X is right and Z is wrong, at least for now. So for the time being, respect our current code or risk the consequences of not doing so."?
Andrew Pessin
February 8, 2011
(changed February 8, 2011)
Permalink
One can perhaps say a similar thing re all attempts to gain knowledge: "what we judge to be true of the world is ultimately a product of our (current) standards for gaining knowledge, the theories/procedures we currently judge to be best. Those standards may be relative between cultures,... Read more
Does there exist objective truths about what football (soccer) team is the best? My friends keep telling me that it's possible, on the basis of statistics, to say that Spain objectively is the best national team in the world. I say there are no objective truths about these things. It would be extremely interesting to have a philosophers perspective on this!
Eddy Nahmias
February 5, 2011
(changed February 5, 2011)
Permalink
Great question. I use a similar question on my first day of my Intro to Philosophy class to help my students see that not all questions have either objective answers or subjective answers. (I use "What is the greatest rock band of all time?" to make the point.) Objectively answerable ques... Read more
Does the belief that everything is matter lead to the belief that the most important things in life are material goods? In other words does the philosophy of materialism lead to the other kind of materialism where money and goods are the most valued things?
Sean Greenberg
February 5, 2011
(changed February 5, 2011)
Permalink
I don't think that there is any reason that a materialist metaphysics should lead one to become materialistic. Historically, at least, one of the points of a materialist metaphysics was to bring agents to see that their highest good did not depend on God or an afterlife but could only be... Read more