tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post7242434300063009160..comments2023-06-24T01:15:34.627-07:00Comments on The Skeptic Zone: im-skepticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-76036697255287439422017-05-18T08:14:30.638-07:002017-05-18T08:14:30.638-07:00Evolutionary psychology aside, I find it hard to u...Evolutionary psychology aside, I find it hard to understand how anyone educated in philosophy - even theists - could see RE as anything but a blatant exercise in begging the question.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-81804853388741548392017-05-17T19:41:51.289-07:002017-05-17T19:41:51.289-07:00So well constructed, Skep; insightful.
The emo...So well constructed, Skep; insightful. <br /><br />The emotional/psychological state that is termed 'sensus divinitatis' by Plantinga is now what science research ascribes as the HADD [hyperactive agency detection device]. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion" rel="nofollow">THIS ARTICLE</a> mirrors pretty much the science behind your argument, Skep. Religionists must respond to these explanations if they are ever going to maintain any form of credibility going forward. <br /><br />For much of Western human history Philosophy was simply an enabler, a hand-maiden of Theology. That relationship ended during the Enlightenment period when Science emerged as the most powerful epistemological and ontological tool around which genuine, substantive, evidenced-based philosophical thought and discourse could be properly prosecuted. Unfortunately religionists refuse to acknowledge that Theology is, today, no longer a discipline of any credible merit, academically or intellectually. Its explanatory power has been thoroughly dismantled in the light of the ever burgeoning quanta of knowledge and information about us, the environment, the world, the universe, and even about gods and religious belief no less, that the sciences provide us. <br /><br />Plantinga imagines we have a 'sensus divinitatis' module through which he asserts a belief in god is properly basic. But sensus divinitatis doesn't explain or tell us how we can discern which of the countless manifestations of God known to human kind is the real one. So we are back to square one. Shiva, Ganesha, Baphomet, Jesus, or the Rainbow Serpent of the Aboriginal Australians? The scientific explanation, however, can and does give us an insight into why we believe and why the variety of so many gods. <br /><br />Plantinga of course has invested an enormous amount of time and personal energy holding on to the vestiges of a discredited theory and tradition into which he was inculcated. It would be fair to say he would be incapable of acknowledging the truth of his predicament. 'Sensus divinitatis' is a rather forlorn apologetical attempt, to forge a new field at explaining why people might be imbued with a sense of religious otherliness. But it explains nothing and has little more explanatory power than a goddidit moment. For those who still rely on theology as their primary explanatory mechanism, philosophy is the last refuge to prop up their god belief. Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.com