It's the regress problem. Here is a discussion by Maverick Christian.
Suppose we define evidentialism as follows:
A belief B is justified just in case there is a justified proposition C, which constitutes sufficient evidence for B.
I used to call this "the prove-it game." You need proof for everything you believe, and then proof of the proof, and then proof of the proof of the proof, and then proof of the proof of the proof of the proof, and then proof of the proof of the proof of the proof of the proof, until you finally get tired and give up.
4 comments:
Well, I guess we can go on believing whatever bullshit we want then. Thanks for that.
I didn't say that, now did I. But you need some set of beliefs that don't need proof, and give some criteria for what such beliefs are. Clearly you don't need evidence for everything, so what are the beliefs for which we don't need evidence. What are they?
I'm not sure, but it seems doubtful that any religious beliefs would qualify. What's your opinion?
I'm not sure, but it seems doubtful that any religious beliefs would qualify.
Bad news for the atheist leadership, then, as they have religious beliefs about the universe as cocked up as anything can be.
'Sometimes something can come from nothing, because bastardization of Quantum Physics, durrhurr.'
Post a Comment