-
-
-
your position conflates faith (pistis) and opinion (doxa) in a dangerous way
-
-
Exactly, I agree with you. But the propositions used by reason under ordinary circumstances ("in actual use", as you say) are doxa, not pistis
-
(And as anyone who has read Locke's "The reasonableness of Christianity" has seen, if like Locke you confuse doxa and pistis, you pollute Holy Scripture with the perversions of the unregenerate mind)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
working from first principles which you don't necessarily accept as true.. is still working from first principles.
-
if you want it to be so, fine. But this is semantics; in this sense "working from first principles" doesn't require faith, after all
-
The other option is epistemic nihilism. You can work tentatively without holding any to be true, but if you ever lay claim to having definite knowledge you need to.
-
but the point is that you can do extensive logical analysis of the relationship between propositions before ever drawing conclusions. So reason neither requires nor is based on faith; so Carlo is wrong
-
seems implicit he meant insofar as reason is used to make any truth claims.
-
It would have to be some special kind of truth claim; again, the logical analysis of an argument does require you to assume the premises, and you can often refute a premise or a set of premises without ever assuming that a particular argument is sound
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.