Ask a Christian philosopher a question

[bhsmte]

I was one that would have come forward for this, until about two months ago. Repentance proves Christianity.

How so?

 

[bhsmte]

Even hearsay of one would do!

For some, especially if they like what the hearsay states.

 

[bhsmte]

You began this thread ostensibly for the purpose of answering questions posed to you. However, your responses to certain questions have been nothing but vague, and other questions have gone completely unanswered. First, I asked you about the importance of intellectual honesty in the pursuit of truth (1), and received no answer. Then I asked you whether you were open to be convinced on the question of Jesus' historicity (2). Again, I received no answer.

Shortly thereafter, you claimed to have examined diverse religious claims with the "desire to be objective, honest, and open" (3). Curious about this, I inquired whether this meant you were open to questioning the authorship of scripture and the claims contained therein (4). To my surprise, you reported that you were (5). Moreover, you acknowledged fallibilism in relation to your religious beliefs (6, 7), in contrast to what you had earlier claimed (8).

As I harboured severe doubts about your intellectual honesty in this discourse (9), I took this as a positive sign that you had reflected on and modified your philosophical praxis. However, the evasiveness of your most recent responses to my question about appeals to personal religious experience, which tend to reflect a disposition you putatively no longer hold (10), suggests that some kernel of your old habit of thought remains intact. This would imply that, contrary to your earlier claims, you are not open to reconsidering or revising your theological commitments. This in turn raises the same question I posed earlier: in what way is your approach to these matters "objective, honest, and open"? How can one approach such questions honestly if one is not willing to accept the possibility of error or the need for conceptual revision?

Doesn't appear that you have been communicating with someone who is a true philosopher.

 

[oi_antz]

How so, please explain.

You say legal procedures are designed to find the truth, but that the procedure prevents the consideration of a written testimony from a person if they are not available for cross-examination. Yet, if a person has deceased since their written testimony was made, and their testimony is useful for finding the truth, and especially if that testimony is crucial for finding the truth, then the procedure has actually prevented the truth from being considered and it is then not true to say that the procedure is designed to find the truth.

 

[oi_antz]

You know, I seem to have a hard time communicating with you, as I have mentioned before in our previous discussions.

I have answered your questions, more than once.

The fact that you can't accept them, is rude.

You didn't answer this question:

Is this effectively saying that you will make no effort to objectively verify the truth of statements found in the bible, because they are found in the bible?

If you use "yes" and "no" when it is appropriate, then it is easy for me to understand and I will accept it. This question requires only yes or no, and I did ask for some explanation why. Again though, you aren't answering for the purpose of me gaining the information I am asking for, you are answering to make your own point and ignoring my request for information. That really is rude.

 

[oi_antz]

Where was I making fun of Chrilliman, please show me the post?

#973

 

[oi_antz]

How so?

Because He accepts us when we do what we know is right, so The Word of God does not condemn us.

 

[oi_antz]

For some, especially if they like what the hearsay states.

Actually, if you read back to what was originally stated, I am saying that even hearsay of an eye witness will do for something to consider. But as it is, the hypothetical is not even able to produce that, because it is only hypothetical.

 

[oi_antz]

We all accept the truth that reality exists.
We all accept the truth that we can learn some things about reality.
We all accept the truth falsifiable models with predictive capabilities work better than those without.

Thank you for explaining and waiting. This seems to be a pretty robust statement. However, what you are saying about assumptions doesn't rest right with me. People can make some pretty unreasonable assumptions, but I wouldn't describe that as "accepting the truth".

 

[anonymous person]

Such as producing anonymous stories of nameless witness accounts? How hard can that be?

A working definition? Something testable, falsifiable? You couldn't find one either?

Why does the definition have to be testable or falsifiable?

What are you referring to when you say anonymous stories of nameless witness accounts?

 

[anonymous person]

Sure, you set your own standard. I was discussing what is generally acceptable in practices where discovering truth is a priority.

I think we all set our own standard when it comes down to it.

What is generally accepted in practices where discovering truth is priority is a standard that happens to be generally accepted and it definitely is not your standard or criteria for as I said, it would eliminate much of what is considered historical by historians.

 

[anonymous person]

You began this thread ostensibly for the purpose of answering questions posed to you. However, your responses to certain questions have been nothing but vague, and other questions have gone completely unanswered. First, I asked you about the importance of intellectual honesty in the pursuit of truth (1), and received no answer. Then I asked you whether you were open to be convinced on the question of Jesus' historicity (2). Again, I received no answer.

Shortly thereafter, you claimed to have examined diverse religious claims with the "desire to be objective, honest, and open" (3). Curious about this, I inquired whether this meant you were open to questioning the authorship of scripture and the claims contained therein (4). To my surprise, you reported that you were (5). Moreover, you acknowledged fallibilism in relation to your religious beliefs (6, 7), in contrast to what you had earlier claimed (8).

As I harboured severe doubts about your intellectual honesty in this discourse (9), I took this as a positive sign that you had reflected on and modified your philosophical praxis. However, the evasiveness of your most recent responses to my question about appeals to personal religious experience, which tend to reflect a disposition you putatively no longer hold (10), suggests that some kernel of your old habit of thought remains intact. This would imply that, contrary to your earlier claims, you are not open to reconsidering or revising your theological commitments. This in turn raises the same question I posed earlier: in what way is your approach to these matters "objective, honest, and open"? How can one approach such questions honestly if one is not willing to accept the possibility of error or the need for conceptual revision?

Refer to my post where I described how I approached the various worldviews on offer.

Then know this, that I found the Bible to be the Word of God. It follows necessarily and inescapably that every other worldview is not true, for every other worldview denies that the Bible is the Word of God.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Refer to my post where I described how I approached the various worldviews on offer.

Then know this, that I found the Bible to be the Word of God. It follows necessarily and inescapably that every other worldview is not true, for every other worldview denies that the Bible is the Word of God.

That post is what stimulated my question in the first place. It does not answer my question.

 

[anonymous person]

That post is what stimulated my question in the first place. It does not answer my question.

I know.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Refer to my post where I described how I approached the various worldviews on offer.

Then know this, that I found the Bible to be the Word of God. It follows necessarily and inescapably that every other worldview is not true, for every other worldview denies that the Bible is the Word of God.

In addition, refer to this response.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I know.

You know it does not answer my question and yet you refer me to it?

 

[anonymous person]

I would highly recommend the following two books for reading:

Water from a deep well by Gerald Sittser

God and the Philosophers edited by Thomas Morris.

 

[anonymous person]

You know it does not answer my question and yet you refer me to it?

Yes

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes

You aren't here for a serious discussion.

 

[anonymous person]

You aren't here for a serious discussion.

You are entitled to your view. I happen to disagree.