Good_Egg wrote: ↑February 23rd, 2023, 5:08 am
You said Leontiskos wrote: ↑February 20th, 2023, 5:46 pm
Can a math student be telling the truth when they claim that they believe the answer to the problem to be 42, while at the same time being culpably wrong? Of course they can,...
So I asked whether a student who mistakenly believes they have the right answer can be non-culpably wrong.
And you seem to agree with me that the distinction of mistaken belief vs sheer bafflement does not correspond to that of culpable vs non-culpable.
You seemed to agree earlier that not all failings are culpable.
And then, having agreed that putting forward the wrong answer is not necessarily a culpable failure, you say that my view is that culpability with regard to religion is analogous to culpability with respect to arithmetic. That's why I brought up arithmetic in the first place.
That seems like an admission that not all atheism is culpable.
(The difference between an atheist and a don't-know being analogous to the difference between a wrong answer and a failure to reach an answer to the sum at all).
You claim that it cannot be the case that all atheists are culpable and you defended this by saying that
<beliefs are not choices>. I then brought up the math student to show that beliefs are voluntary and can involve culpability. Formally, this was your argument:
1. No beliefs are choices.
2. Religious opinions are beliefs.
3. Therefore, religious opinions are not choices (and therefore cannot involve culpability).
My counterargument against (1) was as follows:
4. The math student who gets an answer wrong uses their volition to arrive at their mistaken belief.
5. Therefore it is possible to hold math students responsible for their answers, including their wrong answers.
6. Therefore, some beliefs are "choices" (or are the result of volition).
(1) is dead in the water. Your argument failed. Now you are trying a new tactic:
7. Religion is like mathematics.
8. In mathematics some wrong answers cannot be culpably imputed to the student.
9. Therefore, in religion some atheism cannot be culpably imputed.
You are trying to apply an analogy as a definition, such that religion and mathematics must be identical in every way. That's a rather silly premise. I have spoken about various complexities of the atheist case, such as the age of reason or personal responsibility, as well as the idea that it is the point of death which is the crucial point. But the most obvious difference between religion and mathematics is conclusion (3) from the argument I have provided
<here>. In mathematics there is no guarantee of sufficient means, for there is no omnipotent god of mathematics who provides everyone with sufficient means to arrive at the correct mathematical answer before they die. You're
again ignoring the central premises of my argument, and in this case stretching an analogy in a really weird way.
Good_Egg wrote: ↑February 23rd, 2023, 5:08 amAs to straw men, I seem to recall that Aquinas puts forward arguments that he does not believe and then argues against them, with a form of words such as "some say that...". And you don't appear to have any problem with him...
Ah, but his opponents believed the arguments. Do you understand the difference?
-----------------
The only thing you have offered in this thread is an anecdote: <I have met atheists who seem to be sincere, therefore not all atheists are culpable>. That's very interesting and all, but anecdotes are one of the weakest forms of argument since they rely on private, singular experiences.
The other problem is that you have consistently kicked against the goad of the premise of the OP, "
From a religious viewpoint..." Everything you say assumes a non-religious viewpoint. Everything you say presupposes ignoring the religious viewpoint. Obviously you are in the wrong thread.
Now you might start a new thread, "From a Non-Religious Viewpoint, are Atheists at Fault?" In such a thread you could present all of the anecdotes you like and no one will respond by pointing out how you are ignoring the entire premise of the thread. I would not engage
you on such a topic, though. It's fairly obvious to me that you do not have the minimum proficiency in logic required for philosophical argument. If you want to engage in philosophical argument you really need at least a basic understanding of logic, and thus I would suggest buying an introduction to logic and working through the whole book before attempting philosophical argument. This is also a helpful thing to do in general, because it teaches one how to think and deliberate.