Exploring Theistic Responses to Reasonable Non-Belief (Dr. Daniel Speak)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 лип 2024
- 0:00 Intro
1:58 What is Schellenberg’s Argument from Divine Hiddenness?
5:09 What is Reasonable Non-belief of God?
8:30 What are Two strategies for resisting premise 3: reasonable nonbelief in God occurs
14:25 What are some ways of resisting premise 2?: If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable unbelief does not occur
20:41 What are some of the ways the proponents of divine hiddenness argument may respond?
26:00 To argue for the truth of premise 2, Schellenberg claims that an intimate reciprocal relationship with another person is possible only if one believes that the other person exists. What is a counterexample?
30:08 Crucial premise in the hiddenness argument: Belief is necessary for a relationship
40:26 What is the skeptical theist response to the problem of divine hiddenness?
43:49 How does William Rowe’s parent analogy take the problem of divine hiddenness a step deeper?
46:37 What is the skeptical theist response to William Rowe’s parent analogy?
48:27 Does skeptical theism force us to stay that no kind, amount of distribution of evil could ever seriously threaten theistic belief?
57:19 Where does this leave us (conclusion)?
In this interview, I'm joined by Dr. Daniel Speak (professor of philosophy at Loyola Marymount University) to discuss some theistic responses to the problem of divine hiddenness. The discussion is based on chapter 4 of Dr. Speak's book linked below.
Dr. Speaks book on the Problem of Evil
www.amazon.com/Problem-Evil-K...
Please consider supporting me on patreon. Go to / theanalyticchristian
For merch and more, go to www.theanalyticchristian.com - Розваги
Oh man…I REALLY wanted a follow up on his problems with Molinism!
Interesting video. Regarding Dr. Speak's undercutting defeater, I would like to know how he would respond to the main concern facing religious fictionalism, namely the fact that cognitive science seems to suggest that acting as though some proposition is true while adopting a non-doxastic attitude towards the proposition can tend to make one's attitude go from non-doxastic to doxastic. If we still want to maintain that the norms around hope pull apart from the norms around belief and hold that a non-believer can be in a position to reasonably hope that God exists without being in a position to reasonably believe God exists, as we would need to do for the defeater to work, what should the non-believer do to adopt a hopeful attitude towards theism without allowing it to develop into a doxastic attitude independently of them receiving evidence for theism that they find compelling?
I don't know why they didn't bring up Universalism? It solves the problem easily.
Good video - I think that post-mortem salvific opportunities remains the best response to the problem of divine hiddenness.
Daniel Spencer has a great paper on the Trinity
Fascinating 🤩🤩🤩
I think there is another way of denying Premise 2.
Theistic arguments rely on premesis. The acceptence of these premises rely on our senses. So there could also be something wrong with our senses, while we are still completely rational and the existence of God would also be completely rational given the right premesis.
For example: Meaning. Some people might see the meaning in the world and others might not. A rational person might rightfully and rationally see, that meaning will make Gods existence more likely. But others might not as clearly be able to see the meaining in the creation. Because they lack the right perception of meaning, their rational argumentation can still be fully intact. But it is based on a flawed foundation.
Good comment. This made me think about meaning in another way and as another counter example to resist #2 in so far as there is an expectation that you have to believe to engage in a loving relationship. A person could possibly have a connection and an intimate relationship with what they do in life that is meaningful for them without believing that life has any inherent meaning or purpose. In other words they are deeply committed to engaging in meaningful relationships or practices, and even love them, all the while affirming that life has no meaning. I have only thought about this for about 4 minutes so this is in very early development lol
@@josephsmullen1590 Yeah thats a great additon. I think the responses to rational unbelief can be seen similar to Theodicies. You don't need one response for all seemling rational unbelievers. You just need a huge well of responses and each individual case can be explined with at least one of these answers.
With regards to the last issue you and Dr Speak raised about skeptical theism, what if someone like say Dr Craig, among others, argued that Evil could actually be put into a deductive argument for God’s existence, would that critic have any force with that view?
Dr Speak says that we haven’t been shown that we are rationally required to think P2 is true. Isn’t that a double edged sword? That is asking for it to be so compelling that it is a requirement to believe P2 if u don’t then you’re irrational. Can’t we say more modestly, the crucial argument (belief is necessary) for P2 hasn’t been upheld to the level it needs to be to make it more likely true that not, especially given how crucial that is to P2? What do you think Jordan?
Great video btw
I think the Bible requires us to deny 3.
@The Analytic Christian - Would you be willing to host a debate on the orthodox understanding of the incarnation since I am a Christian who believes Jesus was FULLY man during His earthly ministry. Although most would qualify me as a heretic, I believe my understanding is wholly consistent with Scripture and I would be willing to put my model to the test on your channel if you would be willing to host. I have debated this doctrine multiple times which you can find on my channel and it would be an honor for me to expose the true meaning of the incarnation. Thank you for your consideration.
Yours truly
Stanley Terry