Reason and Research as opposed to Rhetoric on Religious Claims

[variant]

More rhetoric, and unsubstantiated.

Well your defense here is worse than just rhetoric it's drivel.

The charge I am making is easy enough to deflect with a basic definition of God and some demonstration that we can tell the difference between when it exists and when it dosen't via some observation.

 

[Silmarien]

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

My problem is with the word "fideism." It's too big a concept to define in so narrow a sense. Call the version that makes no concessions whatsoever to reason "radical fideism" or something along those lines and I'll be happy.

In any case, back on topic, though this time with things I haven't read:

Alvin Plantinga--I'm intrigued by "Where the conflict really lies," but I'm not sure how important a book it is for someone who is already convinced that materialism is false.

Antony Flew--Has anyone read his book about his conversion to deism? There is so much controversy attached to it due to atheists claiming he was taken advantage of, I'm somewhat leery.

Richard Swinburne--I have never read him but the name keeps coming up. Is there anything particularly interesting by him?

Otherwise I shall retreat back to my medieval lair and resume my studies of Aristotle and Aquinas.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My problem is with the word "fideism." It's too big a concept to define in so narrow a sense. Call the version that makes no concessions whatsoever to reason "radical fideism" or something along those lines and I'll be happy.

In any case, back on topic, though this time with things I haven't read:

Alvin Plantinga--I'm intrigued by "Where the conflict really lies," but I'm not sure how important a book it is for someone who is already convinced that materialism is false.

Antony Flew--Has anyone read his book about his conversion to deism? There is so much controversy attached to it due to atheists claiming he was taken advantage of, I'm somewhat leery.

Richard Swinburne--I have never read him but the name keeps coming up. Is there anything particularly interesting by him?

Otherwise I shall retreat back to my medieval lair and resume my studies of Aristotle and Aquinas.

Yes, I have Flew's last book. He basically just claimed a 'deistic' or quasi-deistic stance, and along the way made friends and had dialogues I guess with a few Christians, one of which was Gary Habermas, and maybe N.T. Wright.

I don't know that Plantinga and Swinburne are going to have anything that really just rocks your world since you are already so adept with philosophy. I haven't read a whole lot by either one, but for me, just about any philsopher has something intresting to say.

 

[Dirk1540]

It's strange, I'm giving out likes & agreements to 3 people who are disagreeing with each other, over the word fideism. Stop including good points around your arguments so I can finally disagree with someone lol. Ok you got it Sil, 'Radical Fideism' it is from now on. Yeah I was using fideism to define revelation alone up until this point.

So actually for many years I was simply told that Eastern Orthodox Christianity was radical fideism.

 

[Silmarien]

Yes, I have Flew's last book. He basically just claimed a 'deistic' or quasi-deistic stance, and along the way made friends and had dialogues I guess with a few Christians, one of which was Gary Habermas, and maybe N.T. Wright.

Is it particularly interesting? Aristotle and Aquinas have pretty much solved the worst of my issues with agnosticism, but Flew's pseudo-conversion is an intriguing story all the same. I ran across Habermas's article on it a while back but got scared off on actually reading it by all the angry atheists.

I don't know that Plantinga and Swinburne are going to have anything that really just rocks your world since your are already so adept with philosophy. I haven't read a whole lot by either one, but for me, just about any philsopher has something intresting to say.

Well... I am really more just all over the place. That is what happens when your advisor is an analytic philosopher and you are pure continental! And I was allergic to philosophy of religion back then, so this is all quite new.

Of course, the fact that it is quite new means that my collection of books grows much more quickly than I can read them.

It's strange, I'm giving out likes & agreements to 3 people who are disagreeing with each other, over the word fideism. Stop including good points around your arguments so I can finally disagree with someone lol. Ok you got it Sil, 'Radical Fideism' it is from now on. Yeah I was using fideism to define revelation alone up until this point.

I did notice that.

Though to be honest, I did just come across one of those "we believe by faith alone" style posts, so... I can't deny that it's a real problem. I'm just not sure how many of the actual philosophers and theologians associated with fideism actually took such a simplistic approach to it. Maybe Barth, but I've never read him at all so can't say.

So actually for many years I was simply told that Eastern Orthodox Christianity was radical fideism.

Well... I would say yes and no. They are premodern in a way that they are very skeptical of the modern world's obsession with rationality, and there is a certain degree of anti-Scholastic bias due to their conflict with Rome. (And Scholasticism went a little bit batty too, as far as I'm concerned.)

The dynamic is so different in Orthodoxy, though, that I'd rather say that they have a fairly exclusive focus on mysticism than accuse them of rejecting reason. Even though it isn't unusual for them to end up doing so. But there's a lot of really intelligent stuff that comes out of that church, and I don't think it's exclusively from the ex-Anglicans. I'd recommend Metropolitan Kallistos Ware if you want of taste of Orthodoxy (though he is one of the ex-Anglicans).

 

[bhsmte]

Well your defense here is worse than just rhetoric it's drivel.

The charge I am making is easy enough to deflect with a basic definition of God and some demonstration that we can tell the difference between when it exists and when it dosen't via some observation.

Good luck with that. Definitions are risky, they risk exposure.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is it particularly interesting? Aristotle and Aquinas have pretty much solved the worst of my issues with agnosticism, but Flew's pseudo-conversion is an intriguing story all the same. I ran across Habermas's article on it a while back but got scared off on actually reading it by all the angry atheists.

Flew's book interests me because in it he describes his own progressions of thought, beginning with the forms of thought that led him to atheism in the first place, and he relates some of his experiences at Oxford University as well in all of this.

In the remaining chapters, Flew recounts how he ended up moving into theism (deism?), even mentioning the likes of Swinburne and Plantinga along the way, among others like Paul Davies, and he ends the book with a 'discussion' of sorts by N.T. Wright on the merits of Christianity. Although Flew doesn't say he's a Christian, he does end up saying that as far as religions go, he thinks Christianity has the most going for it. And that's the book. So, if that kind of thing interests you, and maybe it does because his 'story' sounds a bit like yours, then his book might be for you as a form of casual reading and affirmation of your current spiritual direction.

Well... I am really more just all over the place. That is what happens when your advisor is an analytic philosopher and you are pure continental! And I was allergic to philosophy of religion back then, so this is all quite new.

Fortunately, there are medications for those kinds of allergies.

Of course, the fact that it is quite new means that my collection of books grows much more quickly than I can read them.

Yes...that is a problem for Dirk and me as well. But, it also means there's a lot of interesting stuff still to explore.

 

[Uber Genius]

The charge I am making is easy enough to deflect with a basic definition of God and some demonstration that we can tell the difference between when it exists and when it dosen't via some observation.

Yes. Kalam cosmological argument for God's existence is based on premises agreed to by almost all scientist and with evidentiary support from current theory. Now don't strawman my claim by saying that I'm suggesting scientist agree with the kalam's conclusions, I'm not just the premises.

Similarly, teleological arguments such as the fine-tuning of the universe for life rely on evidence from science to support premises that argue for a designer with God's attributes.

Liebnizian cosmological argument likewise argues from contingency requiring a cause which is deriguer of scientific inquiry.

These are easily understood and research if one is sincere.

 

[variant]

Yes. Kalam cosmological argument for God's existence is based on premises agreed to by almost all scientist and with evidentiary support from current theory. Now don't strawman my claim by saying that I'm suggesting scientist agree with the kalam's conclusions, I'm not just the premises.

Kalam, even if entirely true (which is not taken seriously by most scientists and philosophers) argues that something must start the universe, it dosen't give us a way of telling the difference between a universe where Gods exists that you would recognize as a God, and where something else happened that would make your ideas fundamentally wrong.

If we lazily define God as the force that starts the universe then we've defined it into existence the moment we can demonstrate that the universe has indeed started, but that's pretty hollow a proposition as Atheists are likely to be happy to agree that there is in fact a universe and that if it was required to start, it did.

Similarly, teleological arguments such as the fine-tuning of the universe for life rely on evidence from science to support premises that argue for a designer with God's attributes.

Similarly the universe being "fine tuned" doesn't tell us how it was done.

Nor does it tell us that Gods were involved.

Liebnizian cosmological argument likewise argues from contingency requiring a cause which is deriguer of scientific inquiry.

These are easily understood and research if one is sincere.

And equally meaningless to my point where we can't tell the difference between proposition God and proposition not God in a meaningful way.

These attempts to define God into existence by relying on the question God was originally made up to answer doesn't really answer the fundamental question:

How does the universe come into being?

Rationally shoehorning theology into this question doesn't answer it, it just puts a concept in that supposedly explains things when in reality, that concept explains every possible observation because it's capable of super magic that we don't have to understand.

You could use the words "I don't know" instead of "God did it" as equal statements of explanatory power.

This doesn't define God so much as it exemplifies how God doesn't have a set of observations that would demonstrate to us that it does not exist.

It can't, as God explains all possible observations.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

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)!

I actually discovered Christian Forums when I was in high school through a keyword search about Kierkegaard that lead me to an insightful post in the philosophy section here (which unfortunately has since been discontinued). I was taking an introductory class on neuroscience, psychology, and philosophy, and became interested in Kierkegaard's conceptions of authenticity and introspection while we were discussing a book titled Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious.

From my perspective the professors are reasonably objective. In my experiences thus far they've definitely been more amenable to divergent beliefs from their own backgrounds than what I've encountered from the majority of posters on here. The first Religious Studies course I took was on hermeneutics, and the professor specializes in the history of early Christian thought. She was instrumental in helping to establish a track in Christianity in the new Religious Studies PhD program, but was very receptive to contributions made by non-Christians in the class as well as to differing thoughts from the Christian students. The course that has been the most influential to my faith was not a religious studies one but a public policy seminar titled the Ethics of Truth in a Post-Truth World. A component exploring truth through major literary characters and the impact of religion on truth was taught by our former dean of religious life, Dr. Scotty McClennan. I read a couple of his books when my faith was faltering (in part due to what had become a toxic influence from this forum, actually) when I was in high school, and it was really enriching to learn from him in person.

I'm writing this at a very late hour while my brain is already asleep, haha, so apologies if this doesn't address everything in your post.

 

[Dirk1540]

I actually discovered Christian Forums when I was in high school through a keyword search about Kierkegaard that lead me to an insightful post in the philosophy section here (which unfortunately has since been discontinued). I was taking an introductory class on neuroscience, psychology, and philosophy, and became interested in Kierkegaard's conceptions of authenticity and introspection while we were discussing a book titled Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious.

That does suck, not too long ago I clicked on a link a poster had to a thread in the philosophy section, I was confused why there was no reply option, then realized it was shut down. Kierkegaard is very popular with my peeps in here ha.

From my perspective the professors are reasonably objective. In my experiences thus far they've definitely been more amenable to divergent beliefs from their own backgrounds than what I've encountered from the majority of posters on here.

I can definitely see this. Although it depends some people I can say anything to. I still think that one of my favorite posters in this forum put me on his ignore list after I once talked about UFOs lol, I've never gotten a reply from him since.

The first Religious Studies course I took was on hermeneutics, and the professor specializes in the history of early Christian thought. She was instrumental in helping to establish a track in Christianity in the new Religious Studies PhD program, but was very receptive to contributions made by non-Christians in the class as well as to differing thoughts from the Christian students.

Ok, that definitely sounds like a great open minded teacher! Strangely I run into so many people who think that open mindedness is determined by your conclusion, when open mindedness is about how you reach your conclusion, if you do or do not entertain the arguments of those who disagree with you. I can't count how many times people have said "Chrisianity is so close minded."

The course that has been the most influential to my faith was not a religious studies one but a public policy seminar titled the Ethics of Truth in a Post-Truth World. A component exploring truth through major literary characters and the impact of religion on truth was taught by our former dean of religious life, Dr. Scotty McClennan. I read a couple of his books when my faith was faltering (in part due to what had become a toxic influence from this forum, actually) when I was in high school, and it was really enriching to learn from him in person.

What do you mean by toxic influence? I'm trying more than ever to understand post-moderns, 6 months ago I simply had the default position of "Ok, my brain is wired differently, different strokes for different folks, but I can't talk to them because I can't relate." Still my biggest confusion with postmodernism is the denial of truth. In the title, 'Post-Truth' sticks out like a sore thumb to me. If you believe that truth only exists within the context of your own conscious aren't you still reaching a version of conscious based 'Truth'? There are very smart postmoderns in here, and I think they are smart because of truth claims that they make. After knowing smart postmoderns I feel like postmodernism's anti-Truth statements are just slogans.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

What do you mean by toxic influence? I'm trying more than ever to understand post-moderns, 6 months ago I simply had the default position of "Ok, my brain is wired differently, different strokes for different folks, but I can't talk to them because I can't relate." Still my biggest confusion with postmodernism is the denial of truth. In the title, 'Post-Truth' sticks out like a sore thumb to me. If you believe that truth only exists within the context of your own conscious aren't you still reaching a version of conscious based 'Truth'? There are very smart postmoderns in here, and I think they are smart because of truth claims that they make. After knowing smart postmoderns I feel like postmodernism's anti-Truth statements are just slogans.

It's once again a very late hour when I'm dashing on here in a drowsy state, but perhaps the course description would give more clarity than I presently could. "Post-truth" was selected by Oxford Dictionaries as the word for the year for 2016. Open-mindedness and conceptions of truth relate to some of the jarring experiences I had on CF when I joined here in high school. I'd had very limited exposure to fundamentalism in my day-to-day life, but it was more prevalent here. I was unprepared for the Christian adults who were telling me that if I didn't believe what they laid out as being incontrovertibly true, even though it was unequivocally false (like dinosaurs and man coexisting 5000 years ago) that I wasn't a "true" Christian. I've since learned how to filter instead of sponging up everything, but at the time when I was more impressionable, it was toxic.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's once again a very late hour when I'm dashing on here in a drowsy state, but perhaps the course description would give more clarity than I presently could. "Post-truth" was selected by Oxford Dictionaries as the word for the year for 2016. Open-mindedness and conceptions of truth relate to some of the jarring experiences I had on CF when I joined here in high school. I'd had very limited exposure to fundamentalism in my day-to-day life, but it was more prevalent here. I was unprepared for the Christian adults who were telling me that if I didn't believe what they laid out as being incontrovertibly true, even though it was unequivocally false (like dinosaurs and man coexisting 5000 years ago) that I wasn't a "true" Christian. I've since learned how to filter instead of sponging up everything, but at the time when I was more impressionable, it was toxic.

...yeah, some Christians turn faith into an ultimatum resting their wanting other to parrot an exacting theological framework, but when this kind of thing happens I think there is more potential toxicity. Thank goodness for individuals like Francis Collins who won't tell you that you have to believe what they've laid out, but rather that if you do, it would be helfpul to your faith. I've always had a more BioLogos type of set-up in my mind that has informed my approach to faith, and because of this, I've often received 'flack' over it from more fundamentally oriented brethren. Oh well ...

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[Silmarien]

There are very smart postmoderns in here, and I think they are smart because of truth claims that they make. After knowing smart postmoderns I feel like postmodernism's anti-Truth statements are just slogans.

You know mostly theistic postmodernists here.

Existentialism and postmodernism both have the same problem--they work a bit differently depending on whether you're a theist or an atheist, and it's the atheists who are more well-known. It's amongst atheists that you're more likely to run into fullblown denials of truth as a concept, though even there, I think it's something of a stereotype.

There's also the problem that postmodernism is very European, and philosophy in continental Europe is a different beast entirely to what we're used to here. Philosophy here is held captive to science, so you see things like logical positivism bleeding over into popular culture. Continental philosophers are more likely to deconstruct categories like "atheist," "agnostic," and "theist" altogether. Here's a very interesting article about Derrida's complicated approach to religion by Gary Gutting (who is himself a Catholic agnostic philosopher). I like this part:

Still, he says he has been asking himself all his life Augustine’s question, “What do I love when I love my God?” But where Augustine thinks that there is a supernaturally revealed answer to this question, Derrida does not. He describes himself as a man of prayer, but where Augustine thinks he knows to whom he is praying, Derrida does not. When I asked him this question once he responded, “If I knew that, I would know everything” — he would be omniscient, God!

(I slip into this approach pretty regularly, which is probably why conversation with atheists tends to break down hilariously.)

I think problems show up when you tear postmodernism out of its European context and toss it in an Anglo-American one. Postmodernism denies sharp lines, but we insist upon them, so we take the complicated, messy thing that is European postmodernism and simplify and commodify it. It becomes an excuse not to address the more difficult questions instead of a vehicle for exploring them.

 

[Dirk1540]

Ok thanks for more clarification, and I'll check out the article. I have to be wrong about my labeling of postmoderns in general then, but I know that I have experience running into these hyper no such thing as truth versions of postmodernists. People who say "There is no truth." "That's true for you but not for me." "Truth is relative", etc. I can simply use Frank Turek's 'Roadrunner technique' on them all day long, but they still don't see it;

There is no truth! Really, is that true?

That's true for you but not for me! Is that statement just true for you? Or, so it's not true for you that it snowed in Chicago last night?

Truth is relitive! Really, is that objectively true?

That's the definition of postmodernism that I brought into this forum with me. And I have no doubt that only a society that has been trained into political correctness can possibly think like this, because political correctness trains people to violate the law of non-contradiction on a daily basis.

It's called the Roadrunner technique because their own statement defeats them, and after using the technique they 'Should' realize that they are like the Wile E Coyote after he runs off the edge of the cliff and realizes that he's standing on top of nothing.

 

[quatona]

There is no truth! Really, is that true?

Ok thanks for more clarification, and I'll check out the article. I have to be wrong about my labeling of postmoderns in general then, but I know that I have experience running into these hyper no such thing as truth versions of postmodernists. People who say "There is no truth." "That's true for you but not for me." "Truth is relative", etc. I can simply use Frank Turek's 'Roadrunner technique' on them all day long, but they still don't see it;

There is no truth! Really, is that true?

That's true for you but not for me! Is that statement just true for you? Or, so it's not true for you that it snowed in Chicago last night?

Truth is relitive! Really, is that objectively true?

Your technique is employing a category error (and a false equivocation of "truth").

 

[Silmarien]

That's the definition of postmodernism that I brought into this forum with me. And I have no doubt that only a society that has been trained into political correctness can possibly think like this, because political correctness trains people to violate the law of non-contradiction on a daily basis.

I don't really think political correctness has much to do with this particular problem. Now, if you want a postmodern deconstruction of political correctness, I would say that the basic idea behind it, treating others with respect, ought to be uncontroversial. Power dynamics come into play quickly enough, as on one side, there are people who wish to have the right to say degrading things without societal disapproval, and on the other, people use the concept as a weapon to shame and silence anyone who disagrees. There's a disturbing lack of self-awareness and humility on both sides of the equation, as far as I'm concerned, which is the real problem.

But yes, postmodernism can definitely hit strange places. I was actually speaking to my brother about the issue, and it turns out that he's not a postmodernist by historians' standards, since postmodern historians apparently think that the truth is lost to us and that history ought to instead seek to create the most beautiful narrative of the past. Or... something. He doesn't really understand it. (He is by no stretch of the imagination a modernist, though.) Of course, I don't think postmodern historians are saying that the past never actually happened or anything quite so insane. Postmodernism is generally speaking more of a critique upon our ability to reach objective truth and an exploration of how we construct it instead.

I have seen people take it to extremes too, though. But I don't think they're necessarily postmodernists--I actually think they're modernists who've tasted a bit of postmodernism and melded the two together in a way that really just doesn't work. Then you somehow end up with the objective truth that there is no such thing as truth. Insistence upon objectivity is more a modernist thing.

Your technique is employing a category error (and a false equivocation of "truth").

I'm not sure that it's his error so much as the error of whoever he's run across.

 

[quatona]

I'm not sure that it's his error so much as the error of whoever he's run across.

I agree: it´s probably not an original argument of his - but he´s the one who presented it here.

 

[Dirk1540]

Your technique is employing a category error (and a false equivocation of "truth").

Wouldn't the error be on the part of the person making the blanket statement that there is no truth? I didn't qualify their statement, they said it doesn't exist period.

 

[quatona]

Wouldn't the error be on the part of the person making the blanket statement that there is no truth? I didn't qualify their statement, they said it doesn't exist period.

I´m pretty sure that - if you look at the philosophy of postmodernism - you find more than the unqualified and undefined blanket statement "There is no truth.". I mean, entire books have been written on the topic...