Lol when I was younger someone told me to listen to a shiur by Mizrachi, and I actually briefly *questioned* my belief in Judaism because of him! "If he believes this stuff, perhaps I should back away......" Lol
No one is arguing here that they are right because they are 𝘢𝘬𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 right, (except maybe Mizrachi, (and this other guy, I know nothing about him)). We have arguments and you will weigh them and decide for yourself. I've weighed Craig's arguments and they did not stand up to my logos, ethos or pathos. And while I agree that indoctrination can lead people to false beliefs - we both agree Craig is wrong, for example - that doesn't necessitate that any ideology 𝘪𝘴 wrong. It could be and it could be not. You'll examine the evidence and decide for yourself. Don't be so concerned by the numbers or other people's levels of confidence. If the argument at hand is good, it's good. If not, not.
This post is excellent though: people should be wary of what they believe, and indoctrination can be powerful.
But then again, sometimes people who aren't ready to hear certain concepts can dismiss them too early, and we should be mindful of that too.
Craig thinks that he's examined the evidence, he thinks his arguments are good, and he's written entire books defending them. How did he end up in this position, and what would he have to do in order to escape his false beliefs?
You completely missed the point of the post. None of that is going to change his mind. As I wrote, he will have a response to everything you say (just as you, no doubt, will have a response to everything he says).
The problem is not "Is the argument good?" The problem is that people (including highly intelligent people) believe their arguments are good even when their arguments are bad. Why/how did this happen, how do we know this doesn't apply to us, and is it possible to escape this condition? If so, how?
"Why/how did this happen, how do we know this doesn't apply to us, and is it possible to escape this condition? If so, how?"
Okay, that's more an intellectual curiosity than a fruitful exercise in reaching sound conclusions. 'How do I know that I actually believe what I believe for reasons that are more sound than the things which I don't believe?' It's brain in a vat 2.0.
This isn't limited to religion, either. There are endless debates about morality and rights and free will too. Those debates exist with or without religion. So what?
Agreed it isn't limited to religion. That's why I asked how can we trust the astronomer.
I don't agree that this is identical to the brain in a vat problem. I think there must be something else going here, which pushes e.g. Craig to think the Resurrection really happened. Something more specific than the broader question of whether knowledge is possible in general
What sort of answer would satisfy you? Or would you just keep asking why he believes the thing which leads him to believe in the resurrection? Seems like a pretty useless project.... but that's just my belief.
"You'll examine the evidence and decide for yourself." AND The evidence you gave for Plato's forms WAS that he and many his followers claim to have experienced the alternate reality. Do you really expect others to believe in such an alternate reality b'cause not just plato but numerous followers say so ?
"Don't be so concerned by the numbers or other people's levels of confidence." Yet you yourself use this argument (of large number of Plato's followers) to support an Plato's alternate reality of FORMS ! See our discussion about angels at you substack !
Firstly, if the myriads of people are very bright and know how to think and are clearly not gullible, that says a lot more than a layman, gullible follower. But you're probably right, we are not ready to discuss this point yet, I spoke too early.
You forgot to put a picture of Darwinism in the split image, which faces some pretty serious challenges in light of recent developments in scientific knowledge.
Yosef Mizrachi is a blustering idiot. William Craig is quite intellectual. A huge world of difference between them.
Lol when I was younger someone told me to listen to a shiur by Mizrachi, and I actually briefly *questioned* my belief in Judaism because of him! "If he believes this stuff, perhaps I should back away......" Lol
Yeah, it's not quite an apples-to-apples comparison.
Well written.
Love the last paragraph.
No one is arguing here that they are right because they are 𝘢𝘬𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 right, (except maybe Mizrachi, (and this other guy, I know nothing about him)). We have arguments and you will weigh them and decide for yourself. I've weighed Craig's arguments and they did not stand up to my logos, ethos or pathos. And while I agree that indoctrination can lead people to false beliefs - we both agree Craig is wrong, for example - that doesn't necessitate that any ideology 𝘪𝘴 wrong. It could be and it could be not. You'll examine the evidence and decide for yourself. Don't be so concerned by the numbers or other people's levels of confidence. If the argument at hand is good, it's good. If not, not.
This post is excellent though: people should be wary of what they believe, and indoctrination can be powerful.
But then again, sometimes people who aren't ready to hear certain concepts can dismiss them too early, and we should be mindful of that too.
Looking forward to hearing more!
Craig thinks that he's examined the evidence, he thinks his arguments are good, and he's written entire books defending them. How did he end up in this position, and what would he have to do in order to escape his false beliefs?
"what would he have to do in order to escape his false beliefs?"
He could start by reading this. (beg on pg 13.) https://www.dovidgottlieb.com/appendices/1.pdf
You completely missed the point of the post. None of that is going to change his mind. As I wrote, he will have a response to everything you say (just as you, no doubt, will have a response to everything he says).
The problem is not "Is the argument good?" The problem is that people (including highly intelligent people) believe their arguments are good even when their arguments are bad. Why/how did this happen, how do we know this doesn't apply to us, and is it possible to escape this condition? If so, how?
"Why/how did this happen, how do we know this doesn't apply to us, and is it possible to escape this condition? If so, how?"
Okay, that's more an intellectual curiosity than a fruitful exercise in reaching sound conclusions. 'How do I know that I actually believe what I believe for reasons that are more sound than the things which I don't believe?' It's brain in a vat 2.0.
This isn't limited to religion, either. There are endless debates about morality and rights and free will too. Those debates exist with or without religion. So what?
Agreed it isn't limited to religion. That's why I asked how can we trust the astronomer.
I don't agree that this is identical to the brain in a vat problem. I think there must be something else going here, which pushes e.g. Craig to think the Resurrection really happened. Something more specific than the broader question of whether knowledge is possible in general
What sort of answer would satisfy you? Or would you just keep asking why he believes the thing which leads him to believe in the resurrection? Seems like a pretty useless project.... but that's just my belief.
"You'll examine the evidence and decide for yourself." AND The evidence you gave for Plato's forms WAS that he and many his followers claim to have experienced the alternate reality. Do you really expect others to believe in such an alternate reality b'cause not just plato but numerous followers say so ?
"Don't be so concerned by the numbers or other people's levels of confidence." Yet you yourself use this argument (of large number of Plato's followers) to support an Plato's alternate reality of FORMS ! See our discussion about angels at you substack !
Firstly, if the myriads of people are very bright and know how to think and are clearly not gullible, that says a lot more than a layman, gullible follower. But you're probably right, we are not ready to discuss this point yet, I spoke too early.
You forgot to put a picture of Darwinism in the split image, which faces some pretty serious challenges in light of recent developments in scientific knowledge.