tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post337836264123041501..comments2023-10-30T06:18:18.671-07:00Comments on Dogmatic Enigmatics: Peter Boghossian, Faith and True BeliefAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-64902988192805954402012-02-11T04:28:15.437-08:002012-02-11T04:28:15.437-08:00A) Checked the school boards across across the Bib...A) Checked the school boards across across the Bible belt and every GOP candidate. Yep, I was right. No one (or at least < 0.001% of the population) desires such a thing, as I stated. <br /><br />I doubt if you sat in on all of those intro to philosophy / critical thinking classes and cound that <0.001% allowed faith-based claims to go unchallenged. This is all that Boghassian claimed.<br /><br />B) Transubstantiation is still part of the official Catholic position. However, every Catholic knows (as did I when I was one as a child) that whatever may have gone into their mouth, human flesh did not land in their stomach.<br /><br />C) I'm fully aware of the intellectual rewards produced by St.'s Anselm, Aquinas and Augustine (the 3 A's) as well as the risks they took in bringing reason into theology.<br /><br />However, the fact remains that many high school districts are seeking to teach Creationiwm (currently rebranded as "Intelligent Design") across America.<br /><br />D) As for an airplane and prayer etc... did you even read what I wrote?<br /><br />Yep. You don't get to "cherry-pick" the parts you like from science, any more than you get to cherry-pick from scripture. Either the world makes sense, or it doesn't.<br /><br />E) Nope, didn't say it or imply it.<br /><br />Again, cherry-picking.El Brucéhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04907483464189401422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-47819191995601312022012-02-07T11:17:43.593-08:002012-02-07T11:17:43.593-08:00A) Checked the school boards across across the Bib...A) Checked the school boards across across the Bible belt and every GOP candidate. Yep, I was right. No one (or at least < 0.001% of the population) desires such a thing, as I stated. <br /><br />B) Transubstantiation, as Boghossian conceives of it (hinging on his understanding of 'substance' which differs from the church's teaching), is not a central tenet of the Catholic faith. <br /><br />C) All venerable Christian traditions have always utilized reason and continue to do so. Only a narrow swath of American-flavored evangelical fundamentalism has a problem on this issue<br /><br />D) As for an airplane and prayer etc... did you even read what I wrote? You seem not to have. Once you do, realize your hypothetical question makes no sense as a response to what you quoted in the context of my piece. <br /><br />E) "In short, what you're claiming is that people don't know the process by which they came to the conclusions they have." - Nope, didn't say it or imply it. <br /><br />Fail less, please.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01302611752231009233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3867467970813012874.post-27727952564099112012-02-07T00:54:44.649-08:002012-02-07T00:54:44.649-08:00I agree that Prof. Boghossian's recent seminar...I agree that Prof. Boghossian's recent seminar was not at a high level of academic thinking. However, he stated as much in his own introduction when he characterized his presentation as being more geared towards popularization than origination.<br /><br />As a point of fact, Prof. Boghossian doesn't taach science classes, he teaches philosophy.<br /><br />>So even here, 'faith in the classroom' is a non-issue for any party involved; virtually no one anywhere desires such a thing.<br /><br />Please share that with the school board across the American Midwest and the Bible belt, as well as with the front-running GOP candidates for the nomination to the Presidency of the United States of America. Once you get over the shock of their reply, you can share it with me. I promise, I'll be unsurprised.<br /><br />>But maybe this straw-man, this preposterous fear of believers desiring 'faith in the classroom' was a one-off thing...<br /><br />Unfortunately, far too many people in this day and age expect to be able to make faith-based statements in the classroom, and expect them to go unchallenged solely by the virtue that they are faith-based. To those of use who matriculated some years ago, this may seem improbable, and Prof. Boghossian's simple claim that such statements should be open to challenge may seem inconsequential, but the response to his public statement suggests that the current case is anything but.<br /><br />>... only with the slight twist that faith claims not only aren't appropriate in a public classroom, but that they are actually delusional.<br /><br />Actually, Prof. Boghossian has made this claim from the beginning. It's nothing new.<br /><br />>do even believers themselves hold that "Faith" is the best way to investigate immanent material reality and draw the most reliable conclusions about it? No, so the fact that it isn't fails to disabuse a person of faith from anything whatsoever.<br /><br />If a person had some form of faith which never came into conflict in a class regarding evidence and belief, they'd (hypothetically) do just fine. I can imagine what kind of person could manage it, though.<br /><br />>Boghossian's example of transubstantiation -- conceived of as the physical elements transforming physically into flesh and blood, which is a somewhat dubious interpretation -- is uninteresting...<br /><br />I take it you were not raised Catholic. I was. Although I am no longer, I feel slighted by your casual dismissal of a central tenet of faith of millions of American.<br /><br />>...chalk full...<br /><br />...chock full...<br /><br />>In addition to all of this, most systems of 'faith' are not completely insulated from the influence of facts or reason; indeed, many systems -- certainly most Christian systems -- are responsive to these things, where applicable, in much the same way that science is.<br /><br />Please list the Christian denominations which consider themselves beholden to the current findings of reason and science.<br /><br />>None of this has any bearing on the question of whether faith-as-such is reliable, though, anymore than the existence of bad scientific theses throughout history is evidence that science is unreliable.<br /><br />Would you board an airline that purported to keep its airplanes aloft solely through the method of prayer? Have you ever boarded an airline that purported to keep its airplanes aloft via scientific principles regarding lift and thrust? If so, then you have literally placed your life in the belief that science is indeed reliable.<br /><br />>The more intractable problem for Boghossian's position is that people of faith don't have faith in faith-as-process, they have faith in a particular God, particular tenants, particular traditions...<br /><br />In short, what you're claiming is that people don't know the process by which they came to the conclusions they have. This is precisely the challenge that is placed before every philosophy professor, every semester.El Brucéhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04907483464189401422noreply@blogger.com