Activity
Mon
Wed
Fri
Sun
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
What is this?
Less
More
Inspiring Philosophy Academy
84 members • $25/month
10 contributions to Inspiring Philosophy Academy
0 likes • 2d
@Tim Howard Thanks. As I try to think through it, do you mind if I ask some questions here to help me out where I might be stuck?
0 likes • 1d
@Tim Howard Thanks. I'll go for points 1, 3, and 4 in the comment. I'm really not sure what to make of 2 at all. 1. He's claiming that supernatural intervention is a "massive ontological addition" almost as if the theistic hypothesis and the naturalistic hypothesis are the same with theism just being "naturalism + God". It sounds like he's using the criterion of parsimony to make theism the more complex hypothesis without respect to other explanatory virtues, and he doesn't make the distinction between naturalism and theism regarding the number of brute posits for each one. Secondly, I'm curious about the point about low prior probabilities for miracles. Is he failing to take into account any of the background knowledge of theism that might boost the low prior to something that allows multiple eyewitness accounts to make the posterior greater than that of naturalism? Likewise, isn't the prior for naturalism for these specific kinds of events also low? 3. Regarding the Stalking Horse objection, I don't recall where you argued for a "highly specified theistic model". Were you? It seemed like a standard definition of God to me. I also see his claim that God's goodness "entails" a life-permitting universe or requires it, but you weren't making such a strong claim about entailment right? Also, how would naturalism equally explain why a world ordered toward good things exists? Is he trying to posit atheistic axiarchism? 4. Again, he states you're positing a highly specific theological framework compared to a vague, general naturalism. Once again, you wouldn't consider your model of theism super-specific, right? Also, his objection to Than breaking up the probability space into just three categories was just for the sake of discussing only what Dr Blitz was putting forth, and illustrating a broader point that theism just needs a higher posterior compared to all the alternatives. Would you agree on that (i.e., no discussion of prior was needed because the point wasn't to show that theism actually is the best explanation)
0 likes • Aug 1
Tim posted not too long ago that it is cancelled because he and Than are recording today (presumably for the new courses).
Jun 23 •
Sneak Peak: What’s Coming
We’ve got some exciting things in the works at IPA. This week we’re beginning development on a brand-new course covering Bayesian Epistemology and Rational Belief Formation alongside one of the leading scholars in the world working in this area. The goal isn’t just to teach Bayes’ Theorem. We want to help you understand how rational belief revision actually works, how evidence affects probability, how cumulative cases are built, and how these principles apply to questions about Christianity, history, miracles, science, and everyday reasoning. We’re also going to be building practical tools alongside the course, including: 📊 A Bayes Calculator 📈 Evidence-weighting tools 🧠 Interactive probability visualizations 🔬 Resources to help you apply Bayesian reasoning to real-world arguments and evidence If you had a chance to learn a topic with us: what topic? And what scholars would you want to hear from?
3 likes • Jun 23
I think covering divine hiddenness, especially as it relates to theists who get nothing but silence from God during times of extreme pain and/or doubt, would be greatly helpful. Or a cumulative case for theism using Bayes (not sure if it would be too much to cover in one course).
0 likes • Jun 27
@Ben Heinrichs Are you referring to Schneider's work? I'm not familiar with the literature on this, but I've just heard his name mentioned regarding the Darwinian PoE. Not sure if it connects with Christian theism in particular.
Jun 21 •
Advice for Reading Swinburne's The Existence of God
Hey, everyone. A couple days ago, I decided to start reading The Existence of God. Chapter 1 was pretty easy to comprehend and keep all the concepts straight in my mind, but once I got to chapter 2 where there are sections on both scientific and personal explanations, keeping track of all the definitions started to get really difficult, and I felt like I was highlighting multiple things on every page. If you've gone through the book, could you please offer some advice on how to get through it without feeling overwhelmed, yet being able to retain all the very specific, intricate definitions that Swinburne stipulates for the various types of explanations? Additionally, I'm in the section on personal explanations where he mentions Davidson's account of personal explanations in terms of scientific explanations, and I'm not seeing how his argument goes through for a non-reductionist/broadly dualist view of personal explanation that involves intention. From what I understand, he's saying that Davidson is including intentions themselves as reducible to combinations of brain states and their connections to the rest of one's body, correct? If so, it seems that Swinburne then says that intention is not reducible to brain states and their connections to one's body by this analogy: there are properties like redness that are immediately perceivable, but one does not need to know anything about the perceived object with the property of redness reflecting a particular wavelength that corresponds to the color red. So analogous to the case above, one does not need to know about a one's particular brain state and its connections to know what one's own intention is. Is this just how a typical argument for, at the least, property dualism is made?
Mar 10 •
Question on Nick Meader's Book on the Resurrection
Has anyone here read Nick Meader's book, "Resurrection: Extraordinary Evidence for an Extraordinary Claim"? I was reading chapter 5 last night, and it seemed like he really breezed through how well physical-first or mind-first views of reality fit what we observe about the world, and there was plenty about what a mind-first view even is that was not clear to me. I will put specific questions down later, but for now, I'm just curious as to whether anyone else felt a bit perplexed in this section of the book.
0 likes • Mar 12
@Tim Howard I gotta go back to the chapter tomorrow night and let you know.
1-10 of 10
