tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post5213380511999572338..comments2024-03-28T15:31:02.860-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Rational WarrantJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-60492265200774570132016-08-03T06:03:45.604-07:002016-08-03T06:03:45.604-07:00true rationally but in practice (that is in argume...true rationally but in practice (that is in argument_ they never reach a point where they say I understand why you see it that way well that;s ok.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-40351007090387993992016-08-02T15:15:59.669-07:002016-08-02T15:15:59.669-07:00I have doubts that many atheists want "Absolu...I have doubts that many atheists want "Absolute proof" of theism. If most atheists really love empiricism then looking for absolute proof probably is not something they are use to asking for. Ryan Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15738381414795204410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-7833668823584500682016-08-01T19:01:26.179-07:002016-08-01T19:01:26.179-07:00Or, in a more "continental" sense, "...Or, in a more "continental" sense, "life won't wait 50 years for us to try to figure out if "God" could mean anything or it5 couldn't....."Mike Gerowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14630695728013930638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-42008538513872992852016-08-01T06:52:18.060-07:002016-08-01T06:52:18.060-07:00Logicians dom't really do argument. That's...Logicians dom't really do argument. That's wait rhetoricians do ,The place of an appeal in an argument that's rhetoric.<br /><br />I know Toulmin is not important to Kripke readers. Plantinga writes abouit warrant, he speaks of the debate about warrant.<br /><br />Human knowledge is screwed like everything else.<br /><br />I've been doimng this for almost 20 yers, I know how atheisrts argue Most of them claim they dom<br />t want absolute proof but when you meet the burden they impose they impose another one,meet and they impose anther one it keeps going such that clearly they want absolute proof,Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-35873090088384151082016-08-01T04:08:44.499-07:002016-08-01T04:08:44.499-07:00I wouldn't say "warrant" has anythin...I wouldn't say "warrant" has anything to do with what logicians study. An epistemologist might study warrant, and a logician might study epistemic logic, but making an epistemic logic to model what epistemologists study is not the same thing as studying what epistemologists study. Having said that, Stephen Toulmin wasn't exactly a logician. He studied informal logic and rhetoric, but there's a clear difference between the logic he studied and the logic of Alfred Tarski or Saul Kripke. <br /><br />That quote from Plantinga had absolutely nothing to do with the debate about warrant in philosophy. The book covers a lot of the overall debate (From 1992), but that quote mentions none of it.<br /><br />I think you're incorrect in asserting that atheists ask for "proofs" in a mathematical sense. While atheists often ask for "Proof", the average person does not mean "Sound deductive argument" when they speak of "Proof". Atheists in general are no different. Outside of philosophically trained atheists, an atheist asking for a proof of theism (Or some theistic claim) almost certainly simply wants an argument to show the claim is epistemically justified. <br /><br />Atheists might respond to your last line in a few ways. One way would be to argue that a person S having a rational belief that P is true does not necessarily make it rational for some S* to believe that P is true. Plenty of atheist philosophers take a route similar to this. <br /><br /><br /><br />Ryan Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15738381414795204410noreply@blogger.com