Any and all belief that is based upon logical possibility alone.

I've explained. — creativesoul

You haven't explained, and this still doesn't. Are you saying that belief that is based on logical possibility alone is reasonable but not warranted or what? I still don't understand why you would say that a belief could be reasonable, yet not warranted. As to beliefs based on mere logical possibility; that alone is not a reason to believe anything, so as far as I can see such beliefs are not reasonable nor, which in my view is the same thing, warranted. Regarding that see my response to @Mww above.

In any case, religious beliefs, the subject of this thread, are not based on logical possibility alone, so again you are not dealing with the subject at issue, it seems to me.

You haven't explained... — Janus

:brow:

How many different ways does it need to be explained to you?

At least one, which you haven't offered. If you can't or don't want to explain it that's fine; I'm happy to let it pass.

There was widespread election fraud and the election was basically stolen from Trump.<----- that is logically possible. In order for it to be believed, other things must also be believed. Some of the other supporting beliefs could be...

Machine make mistakes. People don't like Trump. Some of those Trump haters have had it out for Trump since before he was elected, and they worked in the election counting votes or loading machines that count votes. Those people would have done whatever it takes to get him out of office. Some people are dishonest enough to try to steal an election. Some of those people did make such an attempt. I mean, Trump was clearly winning by a mile all night long while we were all watching. Then - while we were all sleeping - suddenly there were all these hundreds of thousands of votes all being reported at the same time, early in the wee hours of the morning, after everyone else had gone to bed...

All for Biden.

Clearly something was fishy in those voting counts.

Much of that rhetoric about the election being stolen from Trump is logically possible(if all sorts of other things were different). It is all based upon, reasoned from, and further reinforced certain strongly held belief about Trump and the United States government. That belief system is held by tens of millions of people. If one believes such things(as above), then it's also quite reasonable to strongly believe that something needs to be done about it by someone.

Stop the steal.

That's reasonable, but not warranted based upon what can be known.

In any case, religious beliefs, the subject of this thread, are not based on logical possibility alone... — Janus

Sure they are.

You've just said

I'm beginning to believe that you are not arguing in good faith. — creativesoul

No, all I've been trying to do is find out exactly what it is you want to say; to find out just what you think the difference between being reasonable and being warranted is. As I've explained I think one entails the other, but you apparently don't, even though you don't seem to be able to explain why you don't.

Restored original post (thanks to creativesoul):


You've just said that that Trump's claims that the election was stolen is reasonable but not warranted, because it is not based on logical possibility alone.

Then you say religious belief is based on logical possibility alone; which I think is an absurd claim. Religious belief is based on personal religious experience, scriptures, historical documents (in some cases at least),millennia of history and practice. It is based on a lot of other beliefs just as Trump's claim the election was stolen is.

The difference is that the claim that the election was stolen is an empirical claim which requires empirical evidence, whereas religious belief is not an empirical claim, and there can be no evidence for it.

It follows that Trump's claim, in the apparent lack of any evidence, is neither reasonable nor warranted, whereas religious belief may be reasonable and warranted (for those who believe) just because it is not an empirical claim, there can be no evidence and the plausibility of the belief thus cannot be measured.

You've just said that that Trump's claims that the election was stolen is reasonable but not warranted, because it is not based on logical possibility alone. — Janus

No, I did not.

I've given several arguments throughout our exchange here. You've neglected them all. I've answered all sorts of things raised by you, only to then have you claim that those things were irrelevant.

I'm beginning to believe that you are not arguing in good faith.

Be well.

Damn it, I've just inadvertently edited and lost my response to your post before last with what was meant to be a new response to your post above, which was a response to the now lost post, and I can't get it back. I'll take that as a sign that this line of inquiry is doomed.

I'll take that as a sign that this line of inquiry is doomed. — Janus

When frustrated, go back to the article and try again. There's still plenty of exegesis and critique to be done.

...go back to the article... — Banno

Good idea.

Chomsky has some interesting things to say on that. — Wayfarer

Cats only meow at humans; not at other cats. They reserve that part of their language for inter-species communication.

Seems to me the discussion went astray here:

...for Kenny religious faith is not unreasonable; does it not follow that it is reasonable? — Janus

As a matter of exegesis, Kenny is not saying faith is not unreasonable; he is saying that faith and reason are incommensurate. See p.394, and the conclusion:

Faith, then, resembles knowledge in being irrevocable, but differs from it in being a commitment in the absence of adequate evidence.

"...in the absence of adequate evidence".

Indeed faith is to be maintained despite, and even in the face of, any evidence.

Further, quite specifically, Kenny points out that

...theological propositions cannot contradict each other in the straightforward way in which empirical propositions do. Hence, there is not the head-on clash between different theologies, and different religions, which has been used to justify the persecution and killing of one religious group by others.

Faith has nothing to do with reason, but everything to do with commitment.

And this:

Faith, as I understand it, is the acceptance of the testimony of a sacred text or of a religious community. The two, in fact, go together, because if the sacred texts are taken as guides to practical life, their authority is inseparable from the authority of the religious officials whose role is to interpret them.

Moving beyond exegesis, faith places the faithful beyond reasonable discourse. They are to believe regardless of the evidence, and follow their religious officials.

Fundamental to the Abrahamic religions is the myth of the binding of Isaac. That story extolls blind obedience to authority. This evil is the cornerstone of religion.

This evil is the cornerstone of religion. — Banno

Don't know why you bothered to start this thread, you've clearly got no real interest in the subject matter.

A curious non sequitur. Did I say something you didn't like? My critique was pretty specific; can you articulate your concern?

In terms of what it can compel people to do. There have been many evils committed in the name of religion. Just now I heard that in some English ethnic groups people are refusing COVID vaccination ‘because their pastor told them’. I think that is what Kenny has in mind. — Wayfarer

This agrees with what I said; yet...

Yes, religions often lead to evil, but saying that religion is intrinsically evil, like Dawkins does, is another thing altogether.

I think for a lot of people, the matter has been resolved, God declared dead, the whole thing left behind. It’s a sealed box, and best left closed.

I’ve never felt that way. I remember the famous Time magazine cover story, Is God Dead?, published when I was 12. I read it, but I thought the notion that God could actually die was plainly ironic or hyperbolic. Not that I had any particular notion of what ‘God’ was, other than that He is. I’ve often felt that religion gets it wrong, but there’s something that it gets wrong, it isn’t simply mistaken in the first place. But I also understand that many people, maybe most people, don’t feel that way about it, and I don’t expect to be able to say anything to change that.

And this:

Faith, as I understand it, is the acceptance of the testimony of a sacred text or of a religious community. The two, in fact, go together, because if the sacred texts are taken as guides to practical life, their authority is inseparable from the authority of the religious officials whose role is to interpret them.

Moving beyond exegesis, faith places the faithful beyond reasonable discourse. They are to believe regardless of the evidence, and follow their religious officials.

Fundamental to the Abrahamic religions is the myth of the binding of Isaac. That story extolls blind obedience to authority. This evil is the cornerstone of religion. — Banno

It is a (mis)interpretation of the binding of Isaac as ‘obedience to authority’ that I think you may be referring to here in describing the ‘evil’ of religion.

I’ve found that accepting the testimony of a text (sacred or otherwise) is quite different from accepting the testimony of a religious community’s interpretation of that text. Belief regardless of evidence (faith) is not the same as blind obedience to authority, but this false equivalence is a common error in Abrahamic religions - and I think that there is as much in their text aimed at highlighting the distinction as there is interpreted to support an equivalence.

In my view, this ‘evil’ is more the cornerstone of institutionalised religion.

Faith is acceptance of an authority - a text or community. Faith is irrevocable; merit comes from belief despite the evidence.

Faith runs counter to the intellectual attitude that simply admits that one does not know.

“Faith is not, as theologians have claimed, a virtue, but a vice, unless a number of conditions can be fulfilled.

I would add a third condition; that faith does not condone, let alone encourage, an action that is repugnant - such as sacrificing one's son.

The conclusion, that faith is not a virtue, seems unavoidable.

I’ve found that accepting the testimony of a text (sacred or otherwise) is quite different from accepting the testimony of a religious community’s interpretation of that text. — Possibility

Then address this:

Faith, as I understand it, is the acceptance of the testimony of a sacred text or of a religious community. The two, in fact, go together, because if the sacred texts are taken as guides to practical life, their authority is inseparable from the authority of the religious officials whose role is to interpret them. In the Judeo-Christian tradition for instance the very notion of “the Bible” as a single entity depends on the various authorities throughout our history who have established the canon. However impressive individual books may be, to see them as elements of a single revelation containing some or all of the other books is already tacitly to accept a religious authority that defines the canon.

Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.

How is this not unquestioning obedience to authority?
Gen 22:12

Faith is acceptance of an authority - a text or community. Faith is irrevocable; merit comes from belief despite the evidence. — Banno

Testimony is not the same as authority - this is a misunderstanding of faith, albeit a common one. And merit comes from action despite the evidence.

Then address this:
Faith, as I understand it, is the acceptance of the testimony of a sacred text or of a religious community. The two, in fact, go together, because if the sacred texts are taken as guides to practical life, their authority is inseparable from the authority of the religious officials whose role is to interpret them. In the Judeo-Christian tradition for instance the very notion of “the Bible” as a single entity depends on the various authorities throughout our history who have established the canon. However impressive individual books may be, to see them as elements of a single revelation containing some or all of the other books is already tacitly to accept a religious authority that defines the canon. — Banno

He’s referring to a tradition, which in itself is not authoritative. It is the enforcing of authority, not faith - in tradition, text or community - that is the error of institutionalised religion. Accepting the interpretation of a sacred text is inseparable from the authority of the religious officials who interpret it, but this has nothing to do with faith.

Faith is defined as ‘trust or confidence in something or someone’. It’s not something you can enforce on or demand from others. This is evident in the story of Abraham, who was touted for his unfailing trust and confidence, that was subtly different from blind obedience. ‘Fear of God’ is mistaken here for obedience to authority, but any illusion of ‘authority’ is given freely by Abraham, not demanded or taken by force. Abraham’s understanding of what God appeared to be asking of him notwithstanding, his trust or confidence in God (and more importantly in the promise made to him of countless descendants) showed in his reply to Isaac’s question about the offering: “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering” - that the sacrifice would not be his only son. An earlier account of Abraham questioning God’s plan to destroy Sodom demonstrates that God was not an ‘unquestionable authority’. But there’s a distinction to be made between questioning someone and doubting them - especially if it protects your own interests.

Bertrand Russell's "Why I'm Not A Christian" is relevant here.

Faith runs counter to the intellectual attitude that simply admits that one does not know.

“Faith is not, as theologians have claimed, a virtue, but a vice, unless a number of conditions can be fulfilled.

I would add a third condition; that faith does not condone, let alone encourage, an action that is repugnant - such as sacrificing one's son.

The conclusion, that faith is not a virtue, seems unavoidable. — Banno

There is no condoning or encouraging an action here - there is, however, trust that there is more to the prescribed action than it appears.

Faith does not replace knowledge - it enables action despite the uncertainty that comes from a lack of sufficient evidence to support a prediction. When someone emigrates to a new country, for instance, they’re acting more on faith than on knowledge.

He’s referring to a tradition, which in itself is not authoritative. It is the enforcing of authority, not faith - in tradition, text or community - that is the error of institutionalised religion. — Possibility

As if there is no acceptable enforcement of authority?

No acceptable enforcement of authority in tradition, text or community alone, no.

He’s referring to a tradition, — Possibility

Why isn't that shifting the topic? No, he's referring to faith. He doesn't mention tradition.

‘Fear of God’ is mistaken here for obedience to authority, but any illusion of ‘authority’ is given freely by Abraham, not demanded or taken by force. — Possibility

"God said 'fear', but meant 'trust'"...?


Not convincing.

Why isn't that shifting the topic? No, he's referring to faith. He doesn't mention tradition. — Banno

Yes, he does:

In the Judeo-Christian tradition for instance... — Banno

He’s referring to an interpretation of faith within a particular religious tradition.

"God said 'fear', but meant 'trust'"...?

Not convincing. — Banno

From a child’s perspective, it’s fear, awe or reverence. From the parent’s perspective, it’s trust. I’m not assuming the text as written is the word of God.

From the article Banno linked...

To explain the origin of life, Dawkins invokes a planetary version of the anthropic principle. He states it thus. We exist here on Earth. Therefore, the earth must be the kind of planet that is capable of generating and supporting us, however unusual, even unique, that kind of planet is. However small the minority of planets with just the right conditions of life may be, we necessarily have to be on one of that minority, because here we are thinking about it.” (GD, 135) On the face of it, the planetary conditions for our support are immensely improbable and call for explanation. No, says this anthropic principle, far from being improbable they are necessary; and necessary truths call for no explanation.

In order to know the odds that some particular event is going to happen one must know each and every actual outcome and all the individual particular influencing factors regarding each. The actual information is not within our grasp; those actual numbers are completely unknown. That said, we could probably be close though, in our predictions, regardless of our lack of omniscience... depending upon whether we're predicting the likelihood of past, current or future events, and perhaps most importantly... also depending upon the particular details of the prediction itself.

So, when we take the total number of planets that either currently are, or have ever once been capable of sustaining life as we know it, and we divide it by the total number of planets in the universe, we will soon arrive at some mind boggling, seemingly damning numbers.

If we then think about those numbers as if they somehow provide adequate reason to believe it near impossible that we should even be here, we've altogether forgotten that...

The odds are one hundred percent that we are, and Hume's guillotine has perhaps never been more appropriate.

No acceptable enforcement of authority in tradition, text or community alone, no. — Possibility

To be clear...

Are you suggesting that there ought be no rules governing human behaviour? That there ought be no such thing as an enforceable clearly written code of acceptable/unacceptable behaviour?

:worry:

Seems to me the discussion went astray here:

...for Kenny religious faith is not unreasonable; does it not follow that it is reasonable? — Janus


As a matter of exegesis, Kenny is not saying faith is not unreasonable; he is saying that faith and reason are incommensurate. See p.394, and the conclusion:

Faith, then, resembles knowledge in being irrevocable, but differs from it in being a commitment in the absence of adequate evidence.

"...in the absence of adequate evidence". — Banno

And yet from right at the beginning of Kenny's article in the abstract:

"but mere belief in God may be reasonable even if false."

What is belief in God if not religious faith? So, either Kenny is contradicting himself or you are misinterpreting him.

As you'll see I've argued all along if you care to read what I've been saying, faith only becomes unreasonable when it takes itself to be (inter-subjectively corroborable) knowledge. One could equally say that disbelief in God may be reasonable even if false. The point is that we do not, and cannot, know which out of belief and disbelief is false. Your personal preference in the matter is merely that: personal preference and nothing more.

"...in the absence of adequate evidence".

Indeed faith is to be maintained despite, and even in the face of, any evidence. — Banno

This is not at all right in my view. Belief in the existence of God cannot be subjected to the (inter-subjective) tribunal of assessment of evidence as empirical claims are. As Kenny says the strictly correct view is agnosticism; but I take this to be qualified by "in the inter-subjective context". In the subjective context, one must make one's own mind up as to what one counts as evidence. I think it is arguable that most people who believe in God think they have good evidence for their belief. (Note again I am not saying they can have good inter-subjectively testable evidence for belief, or disbelief, in God).

The caveat is that one should never expect one's own criteria as to what constitutes evidence for oneself to be binding upon anyone else. (Note, to anticipate a possible misunderstanding this does not apply to the empirical or logical domains, just because they are inter-subjective domains). And this just is because the rational perspective is forced to recognize the absence of inter-subjectively corroborable evidence when it comes to religious belief.

The same principles apply to ethical and aesthetical statements or intuitions as well.