"Have you guys heard about the new rule changes for freestyle? They were just approved by FILA. There are some big changes that are supposed to make wrestling more exciting and increase scoring."
Atheists vs Christians study
Hi there. I'm a PhD student researching the personality differences between atheists and Christians. I'm currently in need of more male churchgoers to participate. If you fit this description and have about 20 minutes, please visit: http://www.godsurvey.org. Thanks.
Matt
Tags: atheism, atheist, personality, research, survey
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Settecase on -
I have a new blog post on why atheists can't really be sure of anything they believe. It might be helpful. Check it out at: http://dontforgettothink.blogspot.com/2012/08/how-to-show-evolution... and good luck with your research!
-
Permalink Reply by Liam S. on -
For what it is worth, EAAN has been pretty roundly refuted over the years. It is not a new argument, or a compelling one - and not because people don't understand or want to deal with logic - but because of flaws in Plantinga's argument (his argument only works under very carefully constructed situations, not reality).
And most of the rest of it rests in solipsism - which has its own attendant problems.
Also - yeesh - thread necro. I didn't notice the date on the OP - sorry.
-
Permalink Reply by Settecase on
-
Really? By whom? Have you read the debate between Dennett and Plantinga? It seems like EAAN is pretty sound. If it's not too much trouble, could you summarize the best argument against it? I would be very interested in knowing that!
Yes, I just realized how old the thread is too. Whoops.
-
Permalink Reply by Liam S. on
-
Arguing to uncertainty, for one, is a basic fallacy.
Also, he neglects to mention that even if his argument is sound, his metaphysical/supernaturalism has the same uncertainty worry. That is, his counter theory is equally flawed, by his own same argument.
Additionally, and more completely, Paul Draper has a good argument here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_draper/naturalism.htmlWith that said - this discussion is probably better held in the Great Debate - than on the main boards.
-
Permalink Reply by Settecase on
-
Liam,
Thanks, I'll check that out. However, I think you may be misunderstanding what Plantinga is saying. He's not saying we can't trust our truth-seeking faculties. He is not arguing to uncertainty. Quite to the contrary, he is saying that we can trust our faculties, that they do fulfill their apparent purpose of seeking the truth, and therefore, because of the (still un-refuted) E. A. A. N., naturalism is not the best explanation.
If the naturalism hypothesis were veridical, then we could never know it. As Churchland (certainly not a "creationist") has said, on naturalism "Truth, whatever that is, takes the hindmost."
Does that makes sense?
*Quick edit: Just to clarify one step further, Plantinga's argument is only susceptible to inscrutability if naturalism is true. Since we can trust our truth-seeking faculties (a fact vigorously defended by naturalists such as Dennett), this indicates that naturalism is not true. We would have to go to great lengths to deny both our common sense and the usefulness of the scientific method to affirm naturalism--something I doubt you or I would be willing to do.
-
Permalink Reply by Will on -
EAAN on Wikipedia. Did not read the whole thing; it's late. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism
I was weirded out by the use of probability (!) in metaphysics. Lewis did a better job, I think -- but as I said, didn't read it all.
[/derail]
Latest Activity
Chad commented on Chad's group Interpreters and Translators"Hello, Todd. Nice to meet you and thanks for adding yourself to the group. The group is just getting started but feel free to jump in with a discussion point! "
"The "who's to say?" argument has no real force in my opinion.The problem only arises when you couch the distinction in terms of damage done to parties. The problem disappears when you think of it in…"
Will replied to J. Hughes's discussion Are we failing at spreading the Word? in the group Christian Men"Naturally we would expect different answers from those inside the Church and without it. (I would hope.)
We've heard from outside -- naturally, they would see movement away from the Gospel as progress, and we wouldn't. To start…"
Vytautas replied to Allen's discussion Identity limbo"Wow, you're still butthurt about women's liberation from the 20s? Now that is some conservatism... you don't even go for the tired, lazy insult to modern feminists but you bring it all the way back to the flappers.
You're right…"
Liam S. replied to J. Hughes's discussion Are we failing at spreading the Word? in the group Christian Men"Well said, Vy.
I also see quite a lot of talk about "the things we hold most valuable, being eroded" - but once you get into the nitty gritty of what those things are, despite the general perception - people have a hard time…"
© 2013 Created by Brett McKay.
Powered by
