Trust can be earned or given blindly. — praxis

Can it?

I’ll let AI take care of the uninteresting questions.

Trust is earned through consistent actions, honesty, accountability, empathy, and respect. By being reliable, transparent, and showing integrity, people come to believe in your character and dependability.

Blind trust is given without evidence or experience, often driven by emotional needs, optimism, authority, or urgency.

Now back to what I think is an interesting question: what is the value of blind trust?

Almost. I've writ about it at some length. What's philosophically illegitimate is dependence on divine writ. — Banno

It makes no sense to deny the philosophical import of divine writ. Why would you deny a writing from God himself?

What you mean to say is one shouldn't justify one's belief in a document based upon their false belief it is from God.

Yet that does not mean the writ is false. It just means the basis for accepting it is invalid

This therefore means one shouldn't justify one's disbelief in a document based upon their correct belief it is not from God.

I’ll let AI take care of the uninteresting questions. — praxis

Is it against the forum rules to substitute AI responses for your own?

I addressed the strange idea of "blind trust" earlier, specifically <here> and <here>.

Is it against the forum rules to substitute AI responses for your own? — Leontiskos

My understanding is that we’re required to mention when AI is used, which is why I mentioned it.

I addressed the strange idea of "blind trust" earlier, specifically <here> and <here>. — Leontiskos

It’s a strange idea that people are entirely rational.

You don’t think that blind trust or faith has any value?

It’s a strange idea that people are entirely rational. — praxis

That looks like a false dichotomy. "Everyone is entirely blind or else everyone has 20/20 vision."

You don’t think that blind trust or faith has any value? — praxis

If someone is starving and they decide to eat a mushroom, knowing that it might be poisonous, then I can see how the act has value and reason. I wouldn't describe it as, "Blind trust," or, "Blind faith."

You’re suggesting that people with a God-shaped hole in their hearts may be desperate enough to gulp down some authentic looking Kool-Aid? A leap of faith is not always rewarded, or is it?

I have read Buber on this in part. I tend to think he makes too much of the difference, but it would be worth discussing. Is the text publicly available? — Leontiskos

Not sure. I only have a superficial understanding of his work on this topic.

I don't think Buber would say that pistis is strictly Christian and emunah is purely Jewish. The Christian can have emunah. The question for me is the role of pistis in Judaism, which would relate to the historical Jesus.

Did you notice the discussion of intuition in the "what is real" thread? Intuition might not be a firm basis for agreement.

You’re suggesting that people with a God-shaped hole in their hearts may be desperate enough to gulp down some authentic looking Kool-Aid? — praxis

Nailed it. :eyes:

I've argued elsewhere that

In summary there are three things that identify a move from a philosophical enquiry to mere theology:
claiming that god is the answer to a philosophical question
using scripture, revelation or other religious authority in an argument
entering into a philosophical argument in bad faith. — Banno

I'll stand by that.

I'll stand by that. — Banno

Okay, but that's not what you said in the post I responded to.

In summary there are three things that identify a move from a philosophical enquiry to mere theology:
claiming that god is the answer to a philosophical question
using scripture, revelation or other religious authority in an argument
entering into a philosophical argument in bad faith. — Banno

I wish you'd number your three elements for clarity. You also don't attach an "and," or "or," so I don't know if you have to have all 3 or just 1 to be in bad faith. I only understand lawyer speak, sorry.

Two responses: (1) Not all theological systems require scripture be the word of God, which would mean your objection is to only certain theologies, and (2) you need to define what "philosophical argument" rightly is to explain why your criteria are necessary to remain within in it.

It sounds like you view philosophy as pursuit of truth, with only certain types of justifications permissible to reach that truth.

I submit that sophy means wisdom, not truth.

Okay, but that's not what you said in the post I responded to. — Hanover

Perhaps. But it is what I had in mind.

I wish you'd number your three elements for clarity. — Hanover

The dots dropped out when I used the quote function. See the original, linked.

1) Not all theological systems require scripture be the word of God, which would mean your objection is to only certain theologies, — Hanover

Sure. Some stuff is both good theology and good philosophy.

(2) you need to define what "philosophical argument" rightly is to explain why your criteria are necessary to remain within in it. — Hanover

I don't agree. It will suffice to point out that "bad" philosophical arguments include those that rest on authority, divine or otherwise.

Did you notice the discussion of intuition in the "what is real" thread? Intuition might not be a firm basis for agreement. — Banno

Agreed.

It makes no sense to deny the philosophical import of divine writ. Why would you deny a writing from God himself?

What you mean to say is one shouldn't justify one's belief in a document based upon their false belief it is from God. — Hanover

That's the whole game. Everyone agrees that one should not utilize falsehoods in justifications. Yet the atheist begs the question when they assume that any "theological claim" (whatever that's supposed to mean) is a falsehood. That's why the atheist argues in bad faith: they demand that their atheist presuppositions be taken as true even when their interlocutor disagrees.

So if an atheist is to philosophically engage a believer on the topic of religion (or faith), then they are not philosophically permitted to simply presuppose that religion is irrational. They are not permitted to define the religious act in terms of irrationality. That imposition and begging of the question is precisely what is unphilosophical. Instead they must argue for the conclusion that religion is irrational, using premises that are acceptable to their interlocutor. That this has not occurred in this thread demonstrates the problem and the unseriousness of this form of atheism.

using scripture, revelation or other religious authority in an argument — Banno

These sorts of criteria are not ultimately coherent. Philosophy is not adverse to arguments from authority, so why would it be adverse to arguments from religious authority? And again, what exactly is "religious" supposed to mean? Historically the reified notion of a "religion" does not even exist until the Enlightenment.

What philosophy is adverse to is forcing claims upon one's interlocutor, including claims of authority. So it is not philosophical or reasonable for a Christian to appeal to a religious authority that his interlocutor does not accept, just as in this thread it is not philosophical or reasonable for atheists to beg the question of atheism even when their interlocutor disagrees. The only real principle that supports your claim is the very one you continually transgress. You don't get to exclude an entire class of claims by fiat and pretend that your so doing is philosophical.

Similarly, when two astrologers argue with one another they are still doing philosophy even if you think their premises are false. You don't get to wave your wand and magically determine that no one who is discussing astrology is engaged in philosophy. A good portion of us think your Wittgenstenian premises are hopelessly confused, but we don't have the audacity to claim that anyone who relies on Wittgenstein is not doing philosophy.

The problem is that authority is not evidence unless it can itself be backed up with evidence. And by evidence I mean anything that an unbiased person would be forced to admit given they can understand it.

Religion in general claims one kind of revelation or another, but there seems to be no way to determine whether purported revelation is telling us something metaphysically real or is just fantasy.

This is what it comes down, religionists cannot say how there could be substantive evidence of their claims. The only conclusion I can see can be drawn from this is that religion is a matter of faith, pure and simple.

Pretty much. The thread was about demarcation, arguing that if the authoritative source is, for example, the bible, the presumption is that one accepts the bible as an authority, and hence the argument is theological not philosophical.

"What philosophy is adverse to is assuming claims upon one's interlocutor, including claims of authority."

The problem is that authority is not evidence unless it can itself be backed up with evidence. And by evidence I mean anything that an unbiased person would be forced to admit given they can understand it. — Janus

The forum is full of loose ends you have left hanging. Here is a pertinent one:

Do you think witness testimony should be admissable in trials? Or, because it might be based on one person's perceptual experiences, should witness reports and unrecorded confessions be thrown out as lacking in epistemic warrant? — Count Timothy von Icarus

If you were right that testimony cannot count as evidence then our whole legal system is kaput. And again, everyone who holds to some authority possesses motives of credibility. There is no magic bullet here. No magic rule like, "Religious stuff doesn't count," or, "Arguments from authority possess no justification," or, "Whatever I think is whatever an unbiased person would think." You have to actually do the real work of arguing a position. You can't just foreclose the whole game from the get-go.

...and there's Leon's personal denigration when confronted.

(...and dog whistle to Tim)

The point is being missed that testimony about what is perceived is more corroborable than testimony about religious feelings.

That's right―the assumption is that the bible, or some assumedly authoritative interpretation of it, should be accepted as evidence, and yet no one seems to be able to say why. I mean it's fine if I accept it as evidence to support my own faith, on the mere basis that it feels right to me or some such, but in what possible way can it be rationally argued that others should accept it? It is an entirely personal matter, surely.

Some religionists complain about that conclusion, but it is apparent they cannot counter it so they resort to dismissal by labelling and derision. All they would have to do to counter would be to explain just how scripture can be cogent evidence for religious or metaphysical claims, evidence that any unbiased person ought to accept, and that is just what we never find coming from them.

I don't agree. It will suffice to point out that "bad" philosophical arguments include those that rest on authority, divine or otherwise. — Banno

Debating the meaning of original philosophical sources is common here and in academia. There must be some reason you read and debate Wittgenstein for example which goes beyond just trying to put a random puzzle together. That is, you sympathize with his views, believe he has something significant to say, and think he carries a certain knowledge beyond yours worth pursuing.

Does that mean you blindly accept anything be says? Of course not, but there's probably built in deference.

We can both pretend that we've arrived at our fundamental positions after worldly search. I coincidentally found meaning in Judaism, it having nothing to do with my environment, and you having found meaning in the leading anglo-analytic thinkers, that too having had nothing to do with your environment.

Sure.

We're all looking for meaning, and you must begin with some source you're willing to grant credibility to. There are enough legitimate means to finding that meaning that we need not force each other to any particular one. It is the intolerant proselytizer that smugly arrives that we can do without because he lives under the illusion his brand of wisdom is best and that he'll change someone's mind who's not looking to change.

If someone has found meaning in John Smith's interpretation of gold plates stumbled upon supposedly in the Adirondack for example, and he has full buy in to all that due to his upbringing, why would I suggest it's bullshit? That i don't get.

Again, philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom.

If someone has found meaning in John Smith's interpretation of gold plates stumbled upon supposedly in the Adirondack for example, and he has full buy in to all that due to his upbringing, why would I suggest it's bullshit? That i don't get. — Hanover

I wouldn't suggest it is bullshit unless they argued that I should accept it. There seems to be no rational way to argue that when it comes to scripture. When it comes to Wittgenstein, we can assess whether what he describes about linguistic practices makes sense according to, is plausible in the light of, our own everyday experience, so that is quite a different matter.

the assumption is that the bible, or some assumedly authoritative interpretation of it, should be accepted as evidence, and yet no one seems to be able to say why. — Janus

The Bible frequently records actual historical events. Much of the Old Testament is true ancient history and is supported by other ancient sources outside the Bible. Obviously, the further back we go, the less is established. As for the New Testament, Jesus surely had a ministry, so the broad outlines of it describe something factual.

The Bible frequently records actual historical events. Most of the Old Testament consists of established history and is supported by other ancient sources outside of the Bible. As for the New Testament, Jesus surely had a ministry, so the broad outlines of it describe something factual. — BitconnectCarlos

Sure, perhaps the bible does present good evidence that certain historical events occurred and that Jesus existed and had a ministry. But that says nothing about the existence of God, or eternal reward and punishment, or Christ as son of God and savior of humankind or whether the reports of extraordinary phenomena ―raising from the dead, curing the blind, walking on water, turning water into wine and so on―should be accepted as reliable. If you think they should be accepted as reliable, then please explain why.

I wouldn't suggest it is bullshit unless they argued that I should accept it. There seems to be no rational way to argue that when it comes to scripture. — Janus

Religious argument and religious interaction is the most interesting kind. This is because religion is primordially identical to culture. Before the pluralism of secular states there was no difference at all. Religio-cultural encounter is the most interesting kind because it involves the interaction of totalizing forms. Chinese Confucianism meets European Christianity meets Indian Hinduism. That sort of thing is the epitome of human encounter, precisely because you have such maximally full and developed expressions of human life coming into contact with one another.

And I'm sorry, but if you think religion or culture or sacred texts are not amenable to argument and rational interpenetration, then your ignorance of history is massive. On a quantitative scale that sort of argument dwarfs all other kinds.

There seems to be no rational way to argue that when it comes to scripture — Janus

There are no books providing argument in support or against Wittgenstein either.

I just thought I'd write a post as bad as yours so you could see how bad it looked when you read it.

More empty assertions. I'm looking for an explanation, not unnecessary history lessons or vacuous claims.

There are no books providing argument in support or against Wittgenstein either.

I just thought I'd write a post as bad as yours so you could see how bad it looked when you read it. — Hanover

Totally irrelevant and a classic example of resorting to denigration when no argument can be found.

Not sure. I only have a superficial understanding of his work on this topic. — BitconnectCarlos

I'd be open to discussing it if we have a primary text to look at. Some of @Hanover's early posts in this thread reminded me of Buber.

- :brow:

If all you guys are looking for is a circle jerk I'll gladly dip out.