Veteran Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About SoRoUsH

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

3,022 profile views
  1. Alright brother! I believe, I've said all I needed to say about this topic. We can always agree to disagree. One last thing: Have you read the article yet?
  2. Every rational (non-faith based) belief requires an argument. Each theory supports a belief. For example, Internalism argues for "X is justified in believing P, if it seems to X that P is true." This statement, this belief, this proposition is the conclusion of an argument. Its critics would examine the premises of the argument, which led to this conclusion, to either reject it or weaken it.
  3. I don't think you have the correct understanding of what arguments are. When you say "theories of justification," what you really mean is "arguments for theories of justification." For each theory to be evaluated it must present an accompanying argument. Why is theory X better than theory Y? Because the argument for X is stronger than the argument for Y. Every rational belief must be accompanied by a convincing argument. There are arguments and counter-arguments, for both internalists' and externalists' takes on justifications.
  4. I did my Master's thesis in epistemology, with a focus on naturalized justifications. So, I can say with confidence, most philosophers, if not all, agree with the claim "Every rational claim requires an argument, unless it is obvious to all or acceptable to all." Some may argue that there aren't any self-evident propositions, which in turn means the removal of the "unless" part of the claim.
  5. No! I've mentioned this a few times. Only self-evident premises are accepted by everyone, because they're self-evident. P is an acceptable claim by most if not all philosopher, because it's rooted in the very definition of rationality. Good. You presented a good argument to argue against P. Here's the definition of "argument." A collection of propositions is an argument if and only if there is a reasoner R who puts forward some of them (the premises) as reasons in support of one of them (the conclusion) in order to rationally persuade an audience of the truth of the conclusion. A typical use of an argument is to rationally persuade its audience of the truth of the conclusion. To be effective in realizing this aim, the reasoner must think that there is real potential in the relevant context for her audience to be rationally persuaded of the conclusion by means of the offered premises.
  6. A self-evidence premise is one that is obvious to everyone. An acceptable premise is one that is acceptable for all parties involved in the debate/discussion. The two are not the same. A premise could be acceptable but not self-evident. However, if a premise is self-evident, then it's acceptable by all.
  7. Thank you. When/If I get the time, I'll read it.
  8. A belief is rational when it corresponds to the evidence that is available. In other words, the rationality of a belief isn't dependent on what others believe, but on what evidence is available to support that belief. First, you're basing your question on a false assumption. Consensus of people is irrelevant to whether a belief is rational or not. The argument is the definition of rationality itself. ra·tion·al·i·ty the quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic. If beliefs are not in accordance with reason or logic, then they are not rational. How do you know a belief is in accordance with reason or logic? If there's a logical or reasonable argument for it. * If there's a logical/reasonable argument for X, then it is rational. * There's a reasonable/logical argument for X. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Therefore, believing X is rational. Again, consensus of people is irrelevant.
  9. There are or there may be. But it's not up to you to determine what they are. If they're self-evident, then everyone agrees with them, atheists and theists. Acceptable premises don't need arguments, because whoever that is your audience already accepts it. Please read my posts carefully.
  10. An acceptable premise is one which audience, whoever you're trying to convince, agrees with or believes already. A self-evident premise is one that all parties agree with, and there is no disagreement about it. Please read my post carefully.
  11. This isn't accurate. To argue for X, you can use premises that are acceptable or self-evident. Only if you employ unjustified premises to support a conclusion, then, of course, the premises need to be examine. This is precisely the point of logic and critical thinking; in-depth analysis of argument to determine their strength and/or validity. Firstly, Cartesian Foundationalism or any of its derivatives seek self-evident beliefs that can in turn be used as foundations for building arguments. Secondly, you cannot arbitrarily choose a stopping point and then pretend that your argument is rational, "but an atheist will never understand." The reason that the atheist disagrees is because at some point a premise is faith-based and irrational. Most atheists aren't stupid. If they see legitimate arguments where premises support the conclusion then they'll consider it. If where you stop is arbitrary, then it is not rational. You must justify your decision to stop at a specific premise. You cannot merely claim "ad infinitum" at an arbitrary place and assume that others must agree with you, and if they don't they're irrational. It is absolutely necessary for a belief to be based on an argument, if that belief is supposedly rational and not faith-based. This is obviously a huge problem or short-coming on your end. This is precisely why Descartes's Foundationalism doesn't work, because he takes certain beliefs to be self-evident and "obviously true," when others disagree about them and don't consider them self-evident. Plus your confidence in the existence of moral, logical, and metaphysical truths is confounding. There are and have been arguments that clearly rejects the existence of such truths. There's nothing self-evident about their existence, unless you rely on faith and hold them as unquestionable dogmas, which in turn makes belief in them faith-based and not rational. This statement has a hint of arrogance to it. Not only psychopaths deny the truths of morality. Highly intelligent contemporary and non-contemporary philosophers have denied their existence, too, and they were certainly not psychopaths. Unless you believe that whoever disagrees with what you see as self-evident is a psychopath. "but they're just wrong." Really? Is this a rational approach? You need to provide sufficient evidence or strong arguments to show how they're wrong. You can't just claim "they're just wrong." Arguments are absolutely necessary for rationality. A faith-based belief is a belief that is believed without a rational argument. When you have faith in X, you believe X is true regardless of arguments for or against it.
  12. I don't see how your #1 answers my first question. Please elaborate. I'll ask them again: How is a belief based on Fitra rational? What justifies it as rational? Here's a different way of asking the same question: Can you provide an argument that indicates that a belief based on Fitra isn't faith-based? In other words, can you show that a belief based on Fitra is unrelated to faith? The objection against internalism is that its principles are subjective and relative to the individuals' unique circumstances. An individual can view belief X as rational and true, but the same claim X may be far from justified for another individual. The internalist position wouldn't permit belief X to be objectively evaluated. The externalist position allows beliefs to be examined objectively by all individuals. So, Belief X is either justified for all or none. Examining Belief X would become a scientific endeavor. Yes, I do expect arguments for any and all beliefs that are supposedly rational and non-faith based. So, I'll ask again, since you didn't present an argument: How is the belief in Fitra rational itself? What is the rational, non-faith based, argument for the existence of Fitra? It is absolutely unclear to me how you can rationally (without requiring faith) justify the following statement: "If we come to believe in God based on the Fitra, then we are rational, because the Fitra is a reliable source of beliefs."
  13. How is a belief based on Fitra rational? What justifies it as rational? How is the belief in Fitra rational itself? What is the rational, non-faith based, argument for the existence of Fitra?
  14. There's the fundamental distinction between faith and reason. All religions, Islam included, require faith. So, religions could be different in how reasonable they are, but none of them can be the outcome of only rational thinking.
  15. Good read!