Reason and Research as opposed to Rhetoric on Religious Claims

[Silmarien]

Oh I'm sorry. In that case it looks like I was attacking straw Silmariens lol

Well, I am a master of obfuscation, Derrida style, so everyone is always attacking straw Silmariens.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Your claims have softened it seems.

Besides the anecdote from my class this morning, which is true but cannot be fact-checked via the internet, my posts contained verifiable facts, not mere claims.

But now you would have us believe that PhDs are equally unfamiliar with one of the top apologist of their entire lives. Wow, that just goes to the fact they haven't spent 5 minutes on the subject. Which is fine. Strange but fine.

It's strange but fine that you're having such difficulty with reading comprehension when you've titled yourself the Uber Genius. I didn't state that the professor or the PhD students were equally unfamiliar with William Lane Craig as I. What I wrote was that they were not surprised that I wasn't knowledgeable about him, and that they don't place him in the same exalted position you do.

The question remains, if you have no interest in apologetics then why post about apologetics?

If you do have interest, then why not spend 5 minutes reading about the best apologists? Instead you parroted Dawkins. Again strange.

Not having extensive knowledge about an apologist you admire doesn't equate to disinterest in apologetics. Curiosity is what lead me to this section and to taking religious studies courses even though they are outside of my major. If the age you've listed is correct, you're nearly 40 years my senior, so you've had substantially more time than I to delve.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I never took the parable of the talents to be related to how we know God. I took it to be related to the fact that we have various abilities and contexts and callings (Talents 1, 5, 10) and we have free will as to how to invest those abilities. If we invest in the Kingdom of God, then we get reward, else we suffer loss.

1 Cor. 3:12-15
12 Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done he will receive a reward but only as through fire.

Far be it from me to argue with you, Uber, but the parable of the talents isn't what I was referring to. And I wouldn't quite go so far as to say that Paul was advocating some kind of epistemic 'foundationalism' like we find with Descartes.

All I will say is that both Jesus and Paul advocate the building of a relationship with God, and both Jesus and Paul tell us to 'be careful how we build or lives of faith.' In 1 Cor. 3, Paul isn't advocating foundationalism, although he probably incorporated some amounts of the deductive and inductive thought of Aristotle somewhere in his apologetic method. I imagine it came in handy when he was in Athens. But overall, Paul is giving us an epistemology that has both a rational component and a spiritual component, and this epistemic structure can't be equivocated with something like Descartes' thinking.

Unfortunately, it's something like this latter form of epistemology that a lot of evangelicals go in for. But, I think there is room (even though not for a wholesale giving way) to consider Pascal or Kierkegaard as supplying some additional things to think about.

 

[Dirk1540]

There's always a leap of faith involved; it might be over a puddle instead of across a chasm, but it's still a leap. Reason alone is not sufficient--the finite cannot comprehend the infinite.

For years I've thought about different ways to word this explanation, how it's not EMPTY faith, but at the same time it isn't just reason either. This is pretty good!

 

[variant]

I would say you're not convinced.
"Vacuous" implies there is no evidence at all, which is simply not true.

It is vacuous by the virtue of being undefined. Which means there is no evidence because positive and negative evidence look the same.

 

[Hieronymus]

It is vacuous by the virtue of being undefined. Which means there is no evidence because positive and negative evidence look the same.

More rhetoric, and unsubstantiated.

 

[KCfromNC]

But what if the observed circumstance / phenomenon is not explainable by anything else?

I'm not sure how anyone could ever conclusively demonstrate that a phenomenon is unexplainable by some unknown natural means.

 

[Uber Genius]

Far be it from me to argue with you, Uber, but the parable of the talents isn't what I was referring to.

Hmm.

Matthew 25:14-30 ESV is the parable of the talents.

verse 29 reads:

"29 For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away."

It's context is the parable of the talents.

You said,

"I don't think so, because Jesus' statement that "To those who have, more will be given, and to those who don't have, even what they have will be taken away," along with other epistemological bits and pieces strewn throughout the Bible, indicate to us that God is mediating our cognitive processes.

So to what were you referring? Were you lifting it out of context?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hmm.

Matthew 25:14-30 ESV is the parable of the talents.

verse 29 reads:

"29 For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away."

It's context is the parable of the talents.

You said,

"I don't think so, because Jesus' statement that "To those who have, more will be given, and to those who don't have, even what they have will be taken away," along with other epistemological bits and pieces strewn throughout the Bible, indicate to us that God is mediating our cognitive processes.

So to what were you referring? Were you lifting it out of context?

Sorry, Uber, I should have cited the specific passage earlier, but I got lazy because I assumed everyone would follow along with my train of thought. My fault. My apologies.

The actual passage I was referring to that has epistemological indications and which uses the "have, have not" motif is Matthew 13:12, and it comes on the heels of The Parable of the Sower. So, this is what I was attempting to refer to in my posts above.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Uber Genius]

But overall, Paul is giving us an epistemology that has both a rational component and a spiritual component, and this epistemic structure can't be equivocated with something like Descartes' thinking.

Not sure to where the equivocation is. I just mentioned that SK is reacting to Hegelian thought and the skepticism that seemed to be launched by Descartes.

So by saying there is "Both a rational component and a spiritual component," you have rejected the exclusive nature of fideism and we are in radical agreement.

I think SK is valuable because we all need to seek a rich experience with a person, namely Jesus. This is necessarily existential and will vary widely and has no more to do with rationality and arguing about Godly attributes, or ecclesiology, than a relationship with a spouse could be in any way encapsulated by a list of attributes, or rituals, or reading about one's spouse.

So rational is God-given ability to perceive truths about the external world.

Existential experiences SK wants us to engage in give us the ability to perceive truths about the person of Jesus, the Father, or the HS.

Just I as perceive things differently about my spouse, father, mother, brother, friends. The large majority of how I know them is through experiences with them. Not lists of a priori truths about them.

 

[Silmarien]

So by saying there is "Both a rational component and a spiritual component," you have rejected the exclusive nature of fideism and we are in radical agreement.

The problem is the label. You admit now that Kierkegaard is valuable, but when he was initially brought up (in a context that also had nothing to do with fideism), focused immediately upon accusations of fideism instead. The insights he has to offer get overlooked in favor of launching an attack on a definition of fideism that may or may not even apply to the philosopher in question.

It's like what happens whenever the word "postmodern" comes up. There are religious strands of postmodernism like Radical Orthodoxy that take the concepts to launch fullblown attacks upon secular modernity and postmodernity, but claim to be a postmodernist, and the sweeping, overwhelmingly secular generalizations start.

There are lots of prejudices at play under the surface here. I think it's worth examining them.

 

[Uber Genius]

You admit now that Kierkegaard is valuable

Never said he wasn't so I don't get the "Now," reference.

Venn Diagram:

The Example is represented by this diagram, where "S" represents the fideism, "P" represents rationalism and "M" represents knowledge about God.

Fideism Claims S and only S. It excludes P.

Hegel perhaps is making a strong case for S not being necessary. Certainly the scholastics are making that case.

I continue to suggest S can lead to M and have claimed so all along, P can lead to M, and Jesus and the Apostles give us examples of P leading to M.

Finally, I think that the purple or a combination of S and P lead to knowledge.

My only quibble is with the "Exclusivity"

No knowledge about God can be gained through rationality, evidence, reason.

I gave a knock down argument with evidence from gospels and Acts of those things occurring.

Fideism is false.

But a posteriori (existential experiences) perhaps make up the bulk of what we know about our world and also what we know about God as we mature in our relationship.

So I don't throw out SK just the portions where he argues for exclusivity.

Perhaps you associated the "label" fideism so strongly with SK that you misinterpreted me as throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Never said he wasn't so I don't get the "Now," reference.

Venn Diagram:

The Example is represented by this diagram, where "S" represents the fideism, "P" represents rationalism and "M" represents knowledge about God.

Fideism Claims S and only S. It excludes P.

Hegel perhaps is making a strong case for S not being necessary. Certainly the scholastics are making that case.

I continue to suggest S can lead to M and have claimed so all along, P can lead to M, and Jesus and the Apostles give us examples of P leading to M.

Finally, I think that the purple or a combination of S and P lead to knowledge.

My only quibble is with the "Exclusivity"

No knowledge about God can be gained through rationality, evidence, reason.

I gave a knock down argument with evidence from gospels and Acts of those things occurring.

Fideism is false.

But a posteriori (existential experiences) perhaps make up the bulk of what we know about our world and also what we know about God as we mature in our relationship.

So I don't throw out SK just the portions where he argues for exclusivity.

Perhaps you associated the "label" fideism so strongly with SK that you misinterpreted me as throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Since we are on the subject of Kierkegaard, here's an article that my be interesting for us to consider (even if you just skim it for 2 or 3 minutes worth). It's written by a guy who has attended Dallas Theological Seminary, and I was surprised to see this author at least give Kierkegaard some further consideration.

Here's the article: SCHUBERT, A. M. Offensive Revelation: Reason Leading to Faith.

 

[Uber Genius]

t's strange but fine that you're having such difficulty with reading comprehension when you've titled yourself the Uber Genius. I didn't state that the professor or the PhD students were equally unfamiliar with William Lane Craig as I. What I wrote was that they were not surprised that I wasn't knowledgeable about him, and that they don't place him in the same exalted position you do.

Didn't mean to misrepresent what you were saying about PhD students.

I encourage people out here to engage the best arguments on both sides. If you PhDs have someone else such as Plantinga, Moreland, Tim Keller, Peter Kreeft, John Lennox, Lee Strobel, Habermas, Geisler, etc. then fine but "don't hold WLC in same exalted position," is silly. Let's engage the arguments not the individual putting them forward.

My primary concern is that from time to time I run into atheists posing as Christians out here. When someone parrots Dawkins claiming to be a Christian my radar goes off.

But again we are off wasting time talking about persons instead of reasons by atheism is true or theism is true, and how we could know.

What are your top apologetic arguments for the existence of God?

 

[Uber Genius]

Since we are on the subject of Kierkegaard, here's an article that my be interesting for us to consider (even if you just skim it for 2 or 3 minutes worth). It's written by a guy who has attended Dallas Theological Seminary, and I was surprised to see this author at least give Kierkegaard some further consideration.

Here's the article: SCHUBERT, A. M. Offensive Revelation: Reason Leading to Faith.

"In Practice in Christianity, Kierkegaard presents an essential connection between all three of these concepts (Reason, revelation, and faith).3 He argues that faith emerges in a man when his reason apprehends revelation in the form of the God-man, but, rather than being offended, he believes. In order for faith to occur, man’s reason must encounter revelation.4 In this encounter, reason apprehends some of the truths of revelation but is unable to account for it as a whole."

This stands in stark contrast to the material I quoted when we chased down the fideistic rabbit trail. I wonder which material came first.

Certainly the HS reveals both our sinful condition and God's solution. And reason only apprehends a portion and is not sufficient for us to move to salvation.

 

[Silmarien]

My only quibble is with the "Exclusivity"

My quibble is with saying that fideism requires exclusivity when the major figures associated with fideism did not.

The word is an accusation. Anyone who doesn't buy into the cult of rationality is a fideist and must be approached with suspicion. (I do not think that you do this, but I do think you're buying into the paradigm that makes it possible in the first place by insisting on a narrow definition of fideism. If the definition excludes the major fideists, it's the definition that's false, not fideism.)

Perhaps you associated the "label" fideism so strongly with SK that you misinterpreted me as throwing the baby out with the bath water.

No, I associate Kierkegaard with existential despair and don't primarily focus upon the issue of fideism at all these days. It was you who very specifically brought up fideism when @Stanfordella mentioned Kierkegaard in the context of a book about the existentialist concept of authenticity. So you initially made the association, not me.

 

[Dirk1540]

Curiosity is what lead me to this section and to taking religious studies courses even though they are outside of my major. If the age you've listed is correct, you're nearly 40 years my senior, so you've had substantially more time than I to delve.

Ahh, a very young member, and one who has already been here for 3 years, I really wish I got involved in more technical study when I was way closer to your age!! A lot of my years of dabbling was spent mulling over a little material a lot...I really wish I had the habit in the past to do it more aggressively like you, mull over a lot of different material, keep pushing forward.

So, out of curiosity, what are your college religious studies instructors like? Would you say that your instructors tend to have biases that are so thick that you can cut them with a knife, or would you say that your instructors have been pretty decent at being objective? Your 3 years in here probably gives you a better perspective for blatant bias then a lot of your classmates.

And have you done any training in logic? Do you think that you can spot logical errors well from the instructors, no matter what their beliefs are? Myself, I just received my very 1st official study material on formal logic, can't wait to dig into it. From what I've heard it sounds like the beginning is fairly easy (informal logic) but then the formal logic gets a little bit more challenging. It would be pretty cool to have a do over in school after learning this stuff. Being able to recognize logical fallacies as I listened to every instructor in school would have been a plus (whether religious or non-religious instructors)!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not sure to where the equivocation is. I just mentioned that SK is reacting to Hegelian thought and the skepticism that seemed to be launched by Descartes.

So by saying there is "Both a rational component and a spiritual component," you have rejected the exclusive nature of fideism and we are in radical agreement.

Yes, I'm not a fideist, if by fideist we mean someone who rejects the use of all rationality in our interaction with God. But, I'm prone to more highly qualify that while we all can use our God-given lights to attempt to configure in our brains an epistemological structure that we think "justifies" our particular views, I for one don't think any one particular epistemological framework can take us to the very 'face of God.' Rather, our individual and varied attempts to be rational and to justify our premises to the epistemic goals we each think we're aiming at will always fall short somewhere along the way. They might be approximations more than anything else.

I think SK is valuable because we all need to seek a rich experience with a person, namely Jesus. This is necessarily existential and will vary widely and has no more to do with rationality and arguing about Godly attributes, or ecclesiology, than a relationship with a spouse could be in any way encapsulated by a list of attributes, or rituals, or reading about one's spouse.

Sure, I can agree with that basic view.

So rational is God-given ability to perceive truths about the external world.

I agree with that, too.

Existential experiences SK wants us to engage in give us the ability to perceive truths about the person of Jesus, the Father, or the HS.

Just I as perceive things differently about my spouse, father, mother, brother, friends. The large majority of how I know them is through experiences with them. Not lists of a priori truths about them.

Ditto.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

"In Practice in Christianity, Kierkegaard presents an essential connection between all three of these concepts (Reason, revelation, and faith).3 He argues that faith emerges in a man when his reason apprehends revelation in the form of the God-man, but, rather than being offended, he believes. In order for faith to occur, man’s reason must encounter revelation.4 In this encounter, reason apprehends some of the truths of revelation but is unable to account for it as a whole."

This stands in stark contrast to the material I quoted when we chased down the fideistic rabbit trail. I wonder which material came first.

Certainly the HS reveals both our sinful condition and God's solution. And reason only apprehends a portion and is not sufficient for us to move to salvation.

All in all, I just take Kierkegaard as saying that, when it comes to things of Christ, things divine, our rationality is stunted by implications of Lessing's Ditch. We want 'more' than just to tell ourselves that, "Hey, I've got this collection of what seem to be justified true beliefs, and if I put them in a certain connective order.. Viola!...I've got faith." And I would agree with Kierkegaard that that isn't faith. There is a component that requires our 'jumping over' Lessing's Ditch and into what we discern is the outreached care of God, through whatever individualized orchestrations God has provided for us to come to Him.

And that's my take on it. Anyway, it doesn't sound like you and I are all that far apart in how we come at all of this, and I for one am not going to get into some long, elaborate debate with a brother whom I respect academically (...even though I might disagree with you a little here, and a little there. )

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Uber Genius]

My quibble is with saying that fideism requires exclusivity when the major figures associated with fideism did not.

Again, I made the distinction about rejecting fideism without throwing out SKs existentialism.

Further I qualified it with a larger portrayal of larger body of his work.

Finally, I quoted him in context. It seems I have been pretty surgical in my critique.

We are in radical agreement about his good points, and I made no attempts to make sweeping generalizations, or attack his other work on the basis of his fideistic approach.