Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I disagree with this. The antecedents of those remarkable accomplishments can be traced back to philosophy. Though there are some areas of philosophy that clearly warrant your criticism, it would be unwise to taint all of philosophy in this way IMO.
Philosophers sit around and giggle that they've found some word-games which "refute" things. Scientists eradicate diseases and put robots on Mars. ....
Tell me, what are some of the things you believe in and hold to be true that you cannot prove?
I don't know. What do you think I might believe in but cannot prove?
Since you are a humanist, you believe humans are entitled to being treated with respect and dignity, right?
I think respect is morally required ... I'm not sure if the word 'dignity' has much use though. I have reasons for having the ethics I do.
Arguments are used as evidences or clues pointing to God. Some people are unwilling to believe something unless there is evidence for that something. I and Alister McGrath, C.S. Lewis, Allen Sandage, John Polkinghorne, Malcolm Muggeridge, come to mind.
And I agree with your last statement.
But those clues have led believers to the God of their particular religion anyway, the very same God that they have faith in. This is why I think Sandage made the unintended point that the arguments are contrived. With or without them you would still believe by faith.
Some of the clues lead to a broad theism. Here I am thinking about the clues or evidences that led Antony Flew to abandon the atheism that he had zealously defended in exchange for a broad theism. I do not believe that he ever became a Christian, but it is clear from his later works, that he was no longer an atheist.
Sandage never said the arguments were contrived at all. He said that to the modern mind they seem contrived.
And why? Well you and others who think like you are of the persuasion that apologists make use of the arguments for no other reason than to support what it is they already believe by faith.
But this is patently false. Apologists do not present arguments for God to themselves or for themselves to be convinced or persuaded about anything!
They present the arguments to skeptics, to unbelievers, in an attempt to demonstrate the intellectual capaciousness of a theistic paradigm, specifically, the Christian one.
You may retort: "Well, when they give lectures and talks at Churches and to Christian audiences, they are talking to people who already believe as it were, by faith. So why would they talk about the arguments at all?"
4. To claim that the arguments are contrived is to misunderstand what the arguments are intended for. They are not intended to be some type of substitute for faith, but rather, are to be used as a grounding, or a foundation on which faith rests.
But "broad theism" is not what most apologists ascribe to, nor is it their starting position.
Yet they fail to do so, because the arguments they present lead only to "broad theism," by your own admission. There are still many steps to take between broad theism and Christianity.
No, my retort is simply that arguments are unnecessary and superfluous to someone who is going to believe by faith anyway. They are contrived in that sense.
They seem to be a crutch, more than anything, for those whose faith is weak.
Interesting indeed. On one hand you would argue against anyone who holds beliefs not grounded by good evidence and argumentation, and then on the other when people do ground their beliefs on evidence and argumentation, you label them as weak in faith?
It seems to me that your notion of faith is that of a blind leap in the dark. That faith cannot be grounded in fact, but must be completely unaided and blind.
Strong faith requires no aid, so yes. Belief by faith requires no evidence and is maintained even when the evidence is contrary. Arguments seem to serve a crutch in moments when faith is weakened by the probing of reason. I label them as weak in faith because, from my perspective, someone whose faith is strong feels no need to justify their beliefs to anyone. They are content to believe by faith alone, no matter what the relevant evidence brings to bear.
What circular reasoning?
Strong faith requires no aid, so yes. Belief by faith requires no evidence and is maintained even when the evidence is contrary. Arguments seem to serve a crutch in moments when faith is weakened by the probing of reason. I label them as weak in faith because, from my perspective, someone whose faith is strong feels no need to justify their beliefs to anyone. They are content to believe by faith alone, no matter what the relevant evidence brings to bear.
Truly confident people don't tout their confidence, because they have no motivation to, because the confidence, gives them internal peace of mind and no need to attempt to convince others.
You misunderstand the motivation for apologetics: it is not necessarily to convince oneself. It's to give reasons for our belief, which is commanded in Scripture so that we can fulfill the commission given by Christ, to teach the Gospel to every creature and to make disciples of all nations.
You misunderstand the motivation for apologetics: it is not necessarily to convince oneself. It's to give reasons for our belief, which is commanded in Scripture so that we can fulfill the commission given by Christ, to teach the Gospel to every creature and to make disciples of all nations.
That is one way to explain it,
but there certainly could be those who have other motivations, could there not, or is that impossible?
You give the typical biblical response, which is nice, but IMO, it does not apply to all.
You are absolutely right. There certainly could be those who have other motivations.
Of course it does not apply. You do not believe that there is a God who commissions us to engage in apologetics!
You misunderstand the motivation for apologetics: it is not necessarily to convince oneself. It's to give reasons for our belief, which is commanded in Scripture so that we can fulfill the commission given by Christ, to teach the Gospel to every creature and to make disciples of all nations.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?