Dear Silmarien, the road to Christianity is paved with Emergence ...

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,122
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
[NOTE: The following apologetic OP thread has been inspired by something that my friend, Silmarien, has recently (and very kindly and with her usual professional comportment) addressed in regard to my peculiar behavior as I attempt to interlocute with various other significant people on this apologetics forum. What I say to her here isn't intended to be a rebuke; it's a discussion piece for all who wish to read it and by which to perhaps think more about what it is for a Christian (any Christian) to attempt to do apologetics from his or her own personal and subjective existence and point of view. It also attends to the misconceptions that skeptics may have about some basic logical and ideological structures of thought that are at play in how we engage Christianity.

Thank you.]

The only thing you in particular do that I'd rather you didn't is talk in a somewhat self-referential manner. I never know what precisely you have in mind when you alude to biblical hermeunetics or mention that you agree with a specific scholar I've never heard of before. I wouldn't mind a bit more clarity when you talk about some of this stuff, since I'd actually love to understand your point of view a bit better!

I'll just lay this out in simple form for everyone since, as you've kindly attempted to address, there is a peculiarity to the idiosyncrasy of the way I often communicate. Forgive me if it comes across as abrupt, but here it goes:

1) I'm a married man with a full time job. Since I'm not single, I don't have the same amount of leisure time to spare as would the typical single person; actually, I have a little less (....and when I start going back to church in 2020, that'll pretty much knock out Sundays as a time during which to write responses. ;)) This means I often feel "rushed" to write things out.

2) I also refuse to spell things out for anyone who doesn't show at least some genuine interest in my point of view, especially when I sense resentment and utter resistance on their part. Moreover, I can instantly think of a million other things I'd rather do than waste either my time or the time of my interlocutor. I'm really here to help folks who 'want' to find a way to have faith in Christ, but if someone dismisses out of hand what I have to offer as if I had just served them up a large plate of steaming boiled spinach, especially when they seem to have feigned an authentic inquiry, I'll be darned if I'm going to play the fool and waste my time spelling things out for for him. (And I say this last bit because this is what I've learned-- now --by experience over these past few years while on CF, and because I'm slightly under the influence at the moment: that is, I've been imbibing Myron Penner's critique on modern Christian Apologetics and rethinking it all ...)

3) Last but least, in my mind, the whole endeavor to demonstrate a perceptual quality called "clarity" over and upon some religious issue is fraught with a 100 car train load of epistemic and psycho-social complexities. Then too, I may be biased because I've NEVER in my life been convinced by any set of short-order cook deductions or by brief summaries on a topic or problems, especially when those conceptual entities relate to mass religion. No, I make my mind up by reading at least whole chapters of multiple books and often from at least more than one angle.

So, maybe I'm not the best one to try to present 'apologetics' since I don't really believe in the power of 'concise' critical arguments, and while I could be wrong about all of this, I don't think ANYONE should believe something based on short order logic either, no matter how valid and sound the argument may "seem." [Just take a listen to Craig's opening, slap-dash deductive argument he attempts to give in the first few minutes of the OP podcase-----he's only offering a valid argument, and he thinks it's sound, but it's not sound, it's only valid.]

And this is why I refuse to make the effort to lay things out by concise logic. As far as I'm concerned, all that goes into Christianity (or into any religion for that matter) can't be lain out in short order.

As another example of what I'm getting at, here are two relatively short videos that (in short order)---together---hint at what I'm getting at :

(Summary: 1st video is by Greg Ganssle and is approx. 6 minutes long. In it, he discusses how deductive thought, in relation to asserting truth about God, is not complex enough to handle conclusion about religion/God, despite what some folks, whether Christian or Skeptic, might think.)



(Summary: 2nd video features Robert Kuhn in discussion with Philip Clayton. They explore the concept of Emergence and the theoretical complexities we might all need to consider as we wrestle with the apparent epistemic contrast between the nature of religious thought and that of scientific thought. It's about 13 minutes long.)

 
Last edited:

Resha Caner

Expert Fool
Sep 16, 2010
9,171
1,398
✟148,100.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Last but least, in my mind, the whole endeavor to demonstrate a perceptual quality called "clarity" over and upon some religious issue is fraught with a 100 car train load of epistemic and psycho-social complexities. Then too, I may be biased because I've NEVER in my life been convinced by any set of short-order cook deductions or by brief summaries on a topic or problems, especially when those conceptual entities relate to mass religion. No, I make my mind up by reading at least whole chapters of multiple books and often from at least more than one angle.


:thumbsup:

So, maybe I'm not the best one to try to present 'apologetics' since I don't really believe in the power of 'concise' critical arguments, and while I could be wrong about all of this, I don't think ANYONE should believe something based on short order logic either, no matter how valid and sound the argument may "seem."

:thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟568,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
CF needs as many different personalities and perspectives as possible to be interesting. I admit that I usually can't follow your posts. In fact I can't follow your opening post in this thread either, but that is o.k.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
So, maybe I'm not the best one to try to present 'apologetics' since I don't really believe in the power of 'concise' critical arguments, and while I could be wrong about all of this, I don't think ANYONE should believe something based on short order logic either, no matter how valid and sound the argument may "seem." [Just take a listen to Craig's opening, slap-dash deductive argument he attempts to give in the first few minutes of the OP podcase-----he's only offering a valid argument, and he thinks it's sound, but it's not sound, it's only valid.]

I've been thinking about this idea a little bit in the last few weeks, and in general I disagree. Because rationality is powerful and language is able to describe rationality, deep ideas can be concisely stated. This is really the role of abstraction and generalization. I actually just made a thread that testifies to the ability to concisely state complex positions, here. The five propositions that drive that thread are incredibly abstract, dense, and concise. While a complex system can be described concisely, the unpacking of that description may take a long time. What's key is that the concise statement provides a handle and a doorway with which to enter a conversation or argument. It focuses the mind in a way that does not prohibit elaboration, but provides a starting point.

The other thing to keep in mind is the medium of communication. Writing a book, publishing an article, replying to a thread, and holding a conversation with someone are different kinds of communication, but the latter require more concision than the former. The nature of internet forums demands the ability to say something meaningful concisely.

As an example, take Craig's argument at 0:53 here that you referenced. There Craig directly answers two criticisms, and I don't see anything wrong with his answers. He addresses concerns, makes substantial points, and moves the dialogue forward, all in a few seconds. I don't believe he was aiming for more than that. Nothing spoken in a few seconds can claim a demonstrative strength that avoids any charge of unsoundness.

Since we have a thread for the topic, the way I would phrase Silmarien's point is with a quote from John Henry Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua:

Whether the ideas of the coming age upon religion were true or false, they would be real. "In the present day," I said, "mistiness is the mother of wisdom. A man who can set down half-a-dozen general propositions, which escape from destroying one another only by being diluted into truisms, who can hold the balance between opposites so skilfully as to do without fulcrum or beam, who never enunciates a truth without guarding himself against being supposed to exclude the contradictory—who holds that Scripture is the only authority, yet that the Church is to be deferred to, that faith only justifies, yet that it does not justify without works, that grace does not depend on the sacraments, yet is not given without them, that bishops are a divine ordinance, yet those who have them not are in the same religious condition as those who have—this is your safe man and the hope of the Church; this is what the Church is said to want, not party men, but sensible, temperate, sober, well-judging persons, to guide it through the channel of no-meaning, between the Scylla and Charybdis of Aye and No."
Newman is complaining about a tendency in religion to err on the side of safety and never commit to a position. I think this is related to clarity, although it is broader and it is very common on these forums (and was recently characterized in jest).

I would characterize it by saying that a proposition (or "statement" if you dislike that word) must be substantial. It must say something. It must be susceptible of agreement or contradiction. For example, if you are at the art gallery and your friend asks what you think of a certain painting, you might reply, "Oh, I think it's nice," but in that case you haven't really said anything meaningful. If instead you say, "Oh, I think the deep shadows create a wonderful contrast with the candlelight!," your friend is given something to work with. He may find the effect brilliant or garish, but either way he won't find the statement unmeaningful or unclear.

Now hold this idea in mind and look at your criticism of Craig's argument:

[Just take a listen to Craig's opening, slap-dash deductive argument he attempts to give in the first few minutes of the OP podcase-----he's only offering a valid argument, and he thinks it's sound, but it's not sound, it's only valid.]

If we want to understand why you have disagreed with Craig this doesn't help us much. We only know that you believe his argument is valid but unsound; that at least one premise is false. If the interlocutor wants to continue the conversation he is forced to ask for clarity. "Why do you believe it is unsound?" "What do you find nice about the painting?"

Perhaps this example is "cheap," but in your thread I also never quite understood what exactly you objected to in Craig. Your objections in that case struck me as vague.

...Anyway, those are just some of my thoughts. I think everyone has methodological quirks and kinks. The only reason I am attempting to point out yours is because you started a thread on the topic. ;)

They explore the concept of Emergence and the theoretical complexities we might all need to consider as we wrestle with the apparent epistemic contrast between the nature of religious thought and that of scientific thought. It's about 13 minutes long.)

FYI: Public Hermit just made a thread very much related to the topic of emergence here for those who are interested.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,473
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,087.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
@2PhiloVoid

Much as I tried... I really can't understand what you are getting at here. Are you saying religious belief is another way of understanding reality on a different system level? I think that's an intriguing idea but it doesn't explain the lack of clarity frequently found in religious notions.

Honestly, I think there have been some Christians that do give us a glimpse into some kind of clarity. People like Meister Eckhart. But on the whole Christianity has been driven by mythology and the vagueries of human passion more than honest exploration.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Much as I tried... I really can't understand what you are getting at here.

I think part of it is actually related to what you said in his other thread:

Religion is far more involving in the totality of ones being than just a bunch of propositions that informs ones thought. Penner gets that, I think even @2PhiloVoid gets that to some extent.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,473
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,087.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
I think part of it is actually related to what you said in his other thread:

Gotcha.

I think Christianity can be a decent way to live out in the world but when people place superstition at the heart of their lives, rather than keeping in mind an ethic of non-harm and reciprocity, then Christianity can become something dark.

I'd like to see more Fred Rogers's or Albert Schweitzers and fewer Billy Graham's or Jerry Fallwells.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,122
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I've been thinking about this idea a little bit in the last few weeks, and in general I disagree. Because rationality is powerful and language is able to describe rationality, deep ideas can be concisely stated. This is really the role of abstraction and generalization. I actually just made a thread that testifies to the ability to concisely state complex positions, here. The five propositions that drive that thread are incredibly abstract, dense, and concise. While a complex system can be described concisely, the unpacking of that description may take a long time. What's key is that the concise statement provides a handle and a doorway with which to enter a conversation or argument. It focuses the mind in a way that does not prohibit elaboration, but provides a starting point.

The other thing to keep in mind is the medium of communication. Writing a book, publishing an article, replying to a thread, and holding a conversation with someone are different kinds of communication, but the latter require more concision than the former. The nature of internet forums demands the ability to say something meaningful concisely.

As an example, take Craig's argument at 0:53 here that you referenced. There Craig directly answers two criticisms, and I don't see anything wrong with his answers. He addresses concerns, makes substantial points, and moves the dialogue forward, all in a few seconds. I don't believe he was aiming for more than that. Nothing spoken in a few seconds can claim a demonstrative strength that avoids any charge of unsoundness.

Since we have a thread for the topic, the way I would phrase Silmarien's point is with a quote from John Henry Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua:

Whether the ideas of the coming age upon religion were true or false, they would be real. "In the present day," I said, "mistiness is the mother of wisdom. A man who can set down half-a-dozen general propositions, which escape from destroying one another only by being diluted into truisms, who can hold the balance between opposites so skilfully as to do without fulcrum or beam, who never enunciates a truth without guarding himself against being supposed to exclude the contradictory—who holds that Scripture is the only authority, yet that the Church is to be deferred to, that faith only justifies, yet that it does not justify without works, that grace does not depend on the sacraments, yet is not given without them, that bishops are a divine ordinance, yet those who have them not are in the same religious condition as those who have—this is your safe man and the hope of the Church; this is what the Church is said to want, not party men, but sensible, temperate, sober, well-judging persons, to guide it through the channel of no-meaning, between the Scylla and Charybdis of Aye and No."
Newman is complaining about a tendency in religion to err on the side of safety and never commit to a position. I think this is related to clarity, although it is broader and it is very common on these forums (and was recently characterized in jest).

I would characterize it by saying that a proposition (or "statement" if you dislike that word) must be substantial. It must say something. It must be susceptible of agreement or contradiction. For example, if you are at the art gallery and your friend asks what you think of a certain painting, you might reply, "Oh, I think it's nice," but in that case you haven't really said anything meaningful. If instead you say, "Oh, I think the deep shadows create a wonderful contrast with the candlelight!," your friend is given something to work with. He may find the effect brilliant or garish, but either way he won't find the statement unmeaningful or unclear.

Now hold this idea in mind and look at your criticism of Craig's argument:



If we want to understand why you have disagreed with Craig this doesn't help us much. We only know that you believe his argument is valid but unsound; that at least one premise is false. If the interlocutor wants to continue the conversation he is forced to ask for clarity. "Why do you believe it is unsound?" "What do you find nice about the painting?"

Perhaps this example is "cheap," but in your thread I also never quite understood what exactly you objected to in Craig. Your objections in that case struck me as vague.

...Anyway, those are just some of my thoughts. I think everyone has methodological quirks and kinks. The only reason I am attempting to point out yours is because you started a thread on the topic. ;)



FYI: Public Hermit just made a thread very much related to the topic of emergence here for those who are interested.

You'd all like a concise statement on Craig. Ok.

The statement Craig made, "There aren't any dinosaurs in the world" is a negative. We can prove it.

However, if we do so, we don't come to think they don't exist because they're simply Invisible and Transcendent.

No, we come to think that they do not exist because we have evidence that they (in the form and species which they were millions of years ago) are all now extinct. We see their dead remains strewn throughout the various strata of certain geological rock layers.

So, there's an ontological difference between saying "no dinosaurs exist" and "No God of the Bible exists."

I mean, what else do I need to say here? :dontcare:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
You'd all like a concise statement on Craig. Ok.

The statement Craig made, "There aren't any dinosaurs in the world" is a negative. We can prove it.

However, if we do so, we don't come to think they don't exist because they're simply Invisible and Transcendent.

No, we come to think that they do not exist because we have evidence that they (in the form and species which they were millions of years ago) are all now extinct. We see their dead remains strewn throughout the various strata of certain geological rock layers.

So, there's an ontological difference between saying "no dinosaurs exist" and "No God of the Bible exist."

I mean, what else do I need to say here? :dontcare:

Okay, I think that's a good point.

In my opinion Craig successfully answered the inquirer's categorical proposition ("You cannot prove the non-existence of a thing.") and you successfully answered Craig's response. I think that sort of progress is an important part of dialectic.

Atheist: You cannot prove the non-existence of a thing.
Craig: You can, because...
Philo: You cannot prove the non-existence of God, because...
Each of those three arguments is substantial. I don't find any of them vacuous. And your response is also open-ended, for Craig could concede or object. After all, some atheists seem to think that a sort of weak proof of God's non-existence is possible, even apart from the argument that the notion of God is contradictory. Either way, what has occurred is a distinction with respect to the idea of God, and that's a good thing in my book.

So if we view Craig's response as a link in a chain of argument it clearly has a kind of importance and integrity. It's just that in that case you have a kind of micro-exchange, where single arguments are traded. Perhaps Craig's response could have been more efficient or effective, but it wasn't pointless or superfluous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,966
12,050
East Coast
✟830,354.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I don't think ANYONE should believe something based on short order logic either, no matter how valid and sound the argument may "seem."

I have some sympathy with this. Instead of trying to give a concise argument I'll share my experience. ;) I was trained in the analytic tradition. One frustration of my first few classes is I would be given ten pages of something to read, walk in the room the next day, and those ten pages would be on the board in the form of three premises and a conclusion. It was aggravating to me. I assumed something was missing. It was too easy.

What they were trying to teach me was to find the framework of the argument, so to speak. Often the rest of what I read was in support of that framework. I learned to appreciate that approach. That being said, life is not a concise argument. Life is messy. Our experience, especially as concerns religion, can make logic chopping seem trite and useless.

The first video you posted is interesting. If I understood, he says that we (should?) approach discussions about God like a detective building a case. I wonder what that would look like on these forums? It wouldn't be one thread. Is that approach even possible in this context? Building a case would need, at least, two willing participants to engage in meaningful discussion long enough for a case to be presented (presumably for each side). If the topic is God, that won't be quick, haha.

I'm a fan of Clayton. He has a couple books on religion and science that I found helpful. I notice he has one on emergence that I should probably read. He clarified a couple things for me, I think. ;)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,473
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,087.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
You'd all like a concise statement on Craig. Ok.

The statement Craig made, "There aren't any dinosaurs in the world" is a negative. We can prove it.

However, if we do so, we don't come to think they don't exist because they're simply Invisible and Transcendent.

No, we come to think that they do not exist because we have evidence that they (in the form and species which they were millions of years ago) are all now extinct. We see their dead remains strewn throughout the various strata of certain geological rock layers.

So, there's an ontological difference between saying "no dinosaurs exist" and "No God of the Bible exists."

I mean, what else do I need to say here? :dontcare:


What you seem to be saying is that God and Dinosaurs are fundamentally different. Perhaps that a statement about God existence is less a factual statement about God and more a statement about some internal disposition of the speaker.
 
Upvote 0

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟568,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
You'd all like a concise statement on Craig. Ok.

The statement Craig made, "There aren't any dinosaurs in the world" is a negative. We can prove it.

However, if we do so, we don't come to think they don't exist because they're simply Invisible and Transcendent.

No, we come to think that they do not exist because we have evidence that they (in the form and species which they were millions of years ago) are all now extinct. We see their dead remains strewn throughout the various strata of certain geological rock layers.

So, there's an ontological difference between saying "no dinosaurs exist" and "No God of the Bible exists."

I mean, what else do I need to say here? :dontcare:
Can't we prove the non-existence of Bible God in the same way you suggest for dinosaurs? The Bible itself has strata, and we can see the concept of God evolving?

Also, it seems to me that the dinosaur bones are not a good proof of the non-existence of modern dinosaurs. A better proof might be to show that a T-Rex would leave various kinds of evidence such as scat that have not been seen and needs certain types of prey and so forth. Evolution doesn't mean the original life form disappears necessarily. (Of course I already admitted that I am a bit lost in this conversation LOL)
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Gotcha.

I think Christianity can be a decent way to live out in the world but when people place superstition at the heart of their lives, rather than keeping in mind an ethic of non-harm and reciprocity, then Christianity can become something dark.

I'd like to see more Fred Rogers's or Albert Schweitzers and fewer Billy Graham's or Jerry Fallwells.

I was actually thinking about the idea you presented:

Religion is far more involving in the totality of ones being than just a bunch of propositions that informs ones thought. Penner gets that, I think even @2PhiloVoid gets that to some extent.

The relation of religion to propositions is rather interesting. In general my opinion is that religion includes mysticism, spirituality, intellection, and rationality, whereas propositions are limited to describing rationality (and discrete thoughts). But I think that rationality, propositions, and human language are relatively isomorphic. So insofar as you can think or reason about something, you can express it in language and in the form of a proposition. Thus propositions are important, too, especially when it comes to communication. Granted, maybe if all you do is watch William Lane Craig debates you will come away with a rationalistic understanding of religion (I was trying not to stray back into the topic of the other thread, but perhaps I'm failing :confused:).
 
  • Like
Reactions: FireDragon76
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,122
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Okay, I think that's a good point.

In my opinion Craig successfully answered the inquirer's categorical proposition ("You cannot prove the non-existence of a thing.") and you successfully answered Craig's response. I think that sort of progress is an important part of dialectic.

Atheist: You cannot prove the non-existence of a thing.
Craig: You can, because...
Philo: You cannot prove the non-existence of God, because...
Each of those three arguments is substantial. I don't find any of them vacuous. And your response is also open-ended, for Craig could concede or object. After all, some atheists seem to think that a sort of weak proof of God's non-existence is possible, even apart from the argument that the notion of God is contradictory. Either way, what has occurred is a distinction with respect to the idea of God, and that's a good thing in my book.

So if we view Craig's response as a link in a chain of argument it clearly has a kind of importance and integrity. It's just that in that case you have a kind of micro-exchange, where single arguments are traded. Perhaps Craig's response could have been more efficient or effective, but it wasn't pointless or superfluous.

Yes, in a general way, you have a good point. But what you're missing here is that back over in the podcast on my other thread, in the interlocution that transpired, the CONTEXT was already laid out by the questioner, and by what the questioner already laid out, Craig needed to address the issue at hand not by talking about the process of how we generically (and deductively) know that some THING like a dinosaur does not exist, but rather the complexity involved with how the process of disproving the existence or non-existence of God is fraught with non-empirical baggage which some THING like the concept of a dinosaur doesn't have. (.......wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeew! A drawn out sentence. *gasp*...breath 2PV, breath)

So, Craig's "answer," such as it was, was in valid form (basically), but it wasn't sound being that it wasn't specifically germane, and he missed that aspect.

I mean, I'm sorry folks, but he did miss the point, and what was presented to start off the podcast "show" as a strong point ended up, to me, to be a somewhat muted point, providing a grist for Penner's Mill.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,122
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I have some sympathy with this. Instead of trying to give a concise argument I'll share my experience. I was trained in the analytic tradition. One frustration of my first few classes is I would be given ten pages of something to read, walk in the room the next day, and those ten pages would be on the board in the form of three premises and a conclusion. It was aggravating to me. I assumed something was missing. It was too easy.
That was partially my experience as well, minus my having any more rigorous emphasis with Analytic Philosophy.

What they were trying to teach me was to find the framework of the argument, so to speak. Often the rest of what I read was in support of that framework. I learned to appreciate that approach. That being said, life is not a concise argument. Life is messy. Our experience, especially as concerns religion, can make logic chopping seem trite and useless.
Right, and is it any wonder, then, that the Philosophical Hermeneutics tradition, despite its lean toward the Post-modern (in a more mediated, social studies fashion), has some minor [Germanic] similarities to Reformed Apologetics? You know, all that "pre-suppositional stuff," with the difference that Philosophical Hermeneutics puts more emphasis upon cultural and temporal context as an factor in the what and how and why any of us may be drawn to various religious assumptions.

The first video you posted is interesting. If I understood, he says that we (should?) approach discussions about God like a detective building a case. I wonder what that would look like on these forums?
Well, in a smaller way, without also directly bringing in Philosophical Hermeneutics (although it can be 'added' in), the approach of Ganssle might look a little like what J. Warner Wallace might offer us.

It wouldn't be one thread. Is that approach even possible in this context? Building a case would need, at least, two willing participants to engage in meaningful discussion long enough for a case to be presented (presumably for each side). If the topic is God, that won't be quick, haha.
Nope. It definitely wouldn't.

I'm a fan of Clayton. He has a couple books on religion and science that I found helpful. I notice he has one on emergence that I should probably read. He clarified a couple things for me, I think. ;)
Clayton is new to me, and I have one of his older books that I'm perusing right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Yes, in a general way, you have a good point. But what you're missing here is that back over in the podcast on my other thread, in the interlocution that transpired, the CONTEXT was already laid out by the questioner, and by what the questioner already laid out,

There's very little context. The questioner begins, "There's a lot of talk about the burden of proof, and I just wanted to point out, firstly, that you cannot prove the non-existence of a thing. And naturalists accept this, but...," and then he moves on to a second objection regarding the nature of explanation (which Craig addresses separately).

Craig needed to address the issue at hand not by talking about the process of how we generically (and deductively) know that some THING like a dinosaur does not exist, but rather the complexity involved with how the process of disproving the existence or non-existence of God is fraught with non-empirical baggage which some THING like the concept of a dinosaur doesn't have. (.......wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeew! A drawn out sentence. *gasp*...breath 2PV, breath)

The first argument from the atheist runs:
  1. You cannot prove the non-existence of a thing.
  2. God is a thing.
  3. Therefore you cannot prove the non-existence of God.
Now the argument is unsound because (1) is false. Craig gave counterexamples demonstrating its falsity and moved on to the atheist's second argument. Craig could have delved into the intricacies of (1) in relation to God, but instead he just noted that (1) is false and sent the atheist back to the drawing board. Apparently he thinks it is the atheist's job to rework (1), not his. That's reasonable, and the second question was apparently more important to the atheist anyway, as he spent much more time on it.

I think Craig's response was correct. It didn't get to the absolute heart of the problem, but it did provide some progress. Craig gave a 90 second response to a 30 second, two-part question from a member of the audience. Spending more time than that wouldn't have been prudent.

So, Craig's "answer," such as it was, was in valid form (basically), but it wasn't sound being that it wasn't specifically germane, and he missed that aspect.

If dialectic is an onion then Craig peeled off a good chunk. If your interlocutor is basing his conclusion on a false premise then the first thing you have to do is address that premise.

I mean, I'm sorry folks, but he did miss the point, and what was presented to start off the podcast "show" as a strong point ended up, to me, to be a somewhat muted point, providing a grist for Penner's Mill.

Presumably that clip was provided as an arguable example of apologetics, not an invincible example. I think it served that function well.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,966
12,050
East Coast
✟830,354.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Right, and is it any wonder, then, that the Philosophical Hermeneutics tradition, despite its lean toward the Post-modern (in a more mediated, social studies fashion), has some minor [Germanic] similarities to Reformed Apologetics? You know, all that "pre-suppositional stuff," with the difference that Philosophical Hermeneutics puts more emphasis upon cultural and temporal context as an factor in the what and how and why any of us may be drawn to various religious assumptions.

Interesting connection. Van Til and Gadamer walk into a bar... Honestly, I have not consider those two schools of thought in relation. But I think I see the similarity you're suggesting. For Philosophical Hermeneutics there is no "disengaged observer." For the Presuppositionalist there also is no "disengaged observer;" however, the engagement is conscious and deliberate. Does that sound right? I'm not very conversant in these areas, so "grain of salt."

I've been imbibing Myron Penner's critique on modern Christian Apologetics and rethinking it all ...)

If you don't mind my prying, I'm curious what you're considering in regards to apologetics.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,122
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
@2PhiloVoid

Much as I tried... I really can't understand what you are getting at here. Are you saying religious belief is another way of understanding reality on a different system level?
No, I'm saying that religious belief is its own sphere of knowledge, for something specific (God in Christ, in this case), and that science, math and logic require their own, separate epistemological, metaphysical spheres of consideration.

I think that's an intriguing idea but it doesn't explain the lack of clarity frequently found in religious notions.
... as Pascal said, God is the God who hides.

Honestly, I think there have been some Christians that do give us a glimpse into some kind of clarity. People like Meister Eckhart. But on the whole Christianity has been driven by mythology and the vagueries of human passion more than honest exploration.
I God even God can please some of the people some of the time, but He can't please all of the people all of the time. (And I'll give a closer look into Meister Eckhart in the near future.)
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,122
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Interesting connection. Van Til and Gadamer walk into a bar...
^_^

Honestly, I have not consider those two schools of thought in relation. But I think I see the similarity you're suggesting. For Philosophical Hermeneutics there is no "disengaged observer." For the Presuppositionalist there also is no "disengaged observer;" however, the engagement is conscious and deliberate. Does that sound right? I'm not very conversant in these areas, so "grain of salt."
Yes, you're on the right track, PH! Philosophical Hermeneutics also values the idea that we all start with some presuppositions. It's just that what those presuppositions may be is a little different in substance and/or application.

If you don't mind my prying, I'm curious what you're considering in regards to apologetics.
Pry as much as you like, bro! In general, my goal is to get people to realize that there are other fields called Hermeneutics and Biblical Epistemology that should be taken into account in one's assessment about the nature of Christian Faith. Thus far, no takers! ^_^ (....actually, those who are Bible Scholars would take some form of these into account, but it seems a number of people aren't too keen on my seemingly "post modernistic" sounding position. )
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,122
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
There's very little context. The questioner begins, "There's a lot of talk about the burden of proof, and I just wanted to point out, firstly, that you cannot prove the non-existence of a thing. And naturalists accept this, but...," and then he moves on to a second objection regarding the nature of explanation (which Craig addresses separately).

The first argument from the atheist runs:
  1. You cannot prove the non-existence of a thing.
  2. God is a thing.
  3. Therefore you cannot prove the non-existence of God.
Now the argument is unsound because (1) is false. Craig gave counterexamples demonstrating its falsity and moved on to the atheist's second argument. Craig could have delved into the intricacies of (1) in relation to God, but instead he just noted that (1) is false and sent the atheist back to the drawing board. Apparently he thinks it is the atheist's job to rework (1), not his. That's reasonable, and the second question was apparently more important to the atheist anyway, as he spent much more time on it.

I think Craig's response was correct. It didn't get to the absolute heart of the problem, but it did provide some progress. Craig gave a 90 second response to a 30 second, two-part question from a member of the audience. Spending more time than that wouldn't have been prudent.
It's too bad we can't argue here, bro! I'm just going to let this pass because while I'm sure my 'complaint' against Craig is only partial and could and should very well be revised, I'm under the impression that he was partially incorrect, and his answer didn't really quite do the job. But, maybe I can argue this with an atheist/skeptic here.

If dialectic is an onion then Craig peeled off a good chunk. If your interlocutor is basing his conclusion on a false premise then the first thing you have to do is address that premise.
Sure. I'm not saying Craig is or was dead wrong. I'm simply saying he didn't quite clinch the substance of a good answer on that opening question. He was at least partially wrong. But, again, I'm done talking about on this tangent. ;)

Presumably that clip was provided as an arguable example of apologetics, not an invincible example. I think it served that function well.
We'll just have to agree to disagree, so "On Guard!" :cool:
 
Upvote 0