The argument..."your god, your religion, your views"

[met]

Plantinga did not invent proper basically.

u mean 'proper basicality' - - that sounds weird and maybe a little kinky . .. (and Firefox doesn't even recognize it as a word) . .. but anyways. . . .

what I meant was this:



Doesn't Platinga's arg that beliefs like 'Christ died for my sins' are (or at least can be) 'properly basic' have an effect on what can then be put forward in a reasonable society as a topic or a perspective fit for public discussion and/or even used as a basis for legislation and public policy?


(now me, IMA a lonnnng ways from any kind of reconstructionist myself but, still, isn't that the implication that follows from Platinga's arguments - and, in fact, wasn't establishing that assertion the real motivation behind his arguments - wanting to make Christian-type perspectives respectable (in public) again???)

[Metacrock]

you wouldn't say "the properly basic" of an argument. You could say proper basicality of an argument. I guess most just call it properly basic but it depends on if you want grammatically correct sentences or not.

Plantinga did not even the idea of an augment being properly basic.

[met]

you wouldn't say "the properly basic" of an argument. You could say proper basicality of an argument. I guess most just call it properly basic but it depends on if you want grammatically correct sentences or not.

Plantinga did not even the idea of an augment being properly basic.

Yeah, I had a long discussion of 'proper basicality' with an atheist on numinous once, so I ended up having to learn it. (Trying to recall the person's uid, can't. "Otherness" or something like that? ) But, really, personally, I've never been convinced that either belief in God nor disbelief in God are really 'properly basic.' Thye problem, for me, was always that 'God' is such a loaded term, so many complex connotations,


TT said it best once, on our board: 'Yes, there's a God.' .. ."but, no, of course, I don't believe in Him/Her'

[Metacrock]

you wouldn't say "the properly basic" of an argument. You could say proper basicality of an argument. I guess most just call it properly basic but it depends on if you want grammatically correct sentences or not.

Plantinga did not even the idea of an augment being properly basic.

Yeah, I had a long discussion of 'proper basicality' with an atheist on numinous once, so I ended up having to learn it. (Trying to recall the person's uid, can't. "Otherness" or something like that? ) But, really, personally, I've never been convinced that either belief in God nor disbelief in God are really 'properly basic.' Thye problem, for me, was always that 'God' is such a loaded term, so many complex connotations,


TT said it best once, on our board: 'Yes, there's a God.' .. ."but, no, of course, I don't believe in Him/Her'

properly basic is a valid idea. It's not that different from my thing of rational warrant. All it means is that there's a valid reason to believe something, and that something doesn't have to absolutely proved to be valid as a belief.

Example if your head hurts you might think it's a head ache. It could be a brain tumor, you can't really know without testing. If you take aspirin and it goes away, that doesn't prove it's not a brain tumor but you have a good reason to think it was a head ache and that it wont come back. you are justified in not going to get tested unless it comes back because there's valid reason to think that it's a head ache and no valid reasons at the moment to think otherwise.

[met]

The way the concepts sound is like 'rational warrant' would be something you could make a reasonable argument for, and there's no stronger arg against? While 'properly basic' could be something with no rational arg? Like eg . . . .the principle of induction?

Some of the examples of 'properly basic' Platinga gives seem to me more like the first. Like 'other minds.' We could argue wee believe in other minds because we encounter ideas we didn't think of for ourselves. Others, like 'the contiguity of memory' seem more like induction, since they're the kind of things it's impossible to make much of a rational argument for (without begging the question one way or another).


(?)

[Metacrock]

The way the concepts sound is like 'rational warrant' would be something you could make a reasonable argument for, and there's no stronger arg against? While 'properly basic' could be something with no rational arg? Like eg . . . .the principle of induction?

Some of the examples of 'properly basic' Platinga gives seem to me more like the first. Like 'other minds.' We could argue wee believe in other minds because we encounter ideas we didn't think of for ourselves. Others, like 'the contiguity of memory' seem more like induction, since they're the kind of things it's impossible to make much of a rational argument for (without begging the question one way or another).


(?)

rational warrant is part of any argument. you have to have a warrant for any conclusion you draw. Think of the sentence, "is that conclusion warranted."

Properly basic just means there's a reason to think something. They are similar and related.