epistemaniac
Senior Member
I would disagree with the Borg recommendation... he and the Jesus Seminar are not reliable guides in this area (the historical Jesus). Check out responses to the Jesus Seminar eg by JP Moreland, “Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus.” . Also see NT Wright N.T. Wright Page ; The Historical Jesus and Christian Theology by N.T. Wright etc
and Luke Timothy Johnson's book "The Real Jesus".... and others....
As far as the OP itself goes... check out some information on epistemology, especially from a Christian perspective. Robert Reymond's "Justification of Knowledge" or Richard Pratt's "Taking Every Thought Captive" or Ronald Nash's "Worldviews in Conflict". Here Nash rigidly critiques the naturalistic methodology which is based on empiricism, or as Plantinga puts it, "narrow foundationalism". This worldview, seemingly the default position for atheists and agnostics, is sadly lacking when it comes to forming a full orbed perspective on reality. Empiricism cannot answer so many of life's questions. It can't even answer many very mundane questions. Sadly, people think that if something cannot be addressed by the empirical method is is somehow automatically false. In reality, this tool is very limited. In fact, the logical positivists who claimed that nothing could be considered knowledge unless it was first provable using the empirical method failed to see that this very statement is itself a metaphysical statement that is not, itself, empirically verifiable, and thus it fails it's own test for "true" knowledge, and thus, the whole system is self referentially false. When you ask how you know that other people have minds, or that history is a reality even though it is not provable via empirical means, you are making claims to knowledge that are reasonalbe, that no sane person would doubt, yet the "proof" for these things is not something that you could prove in a laboratory. Metaphysical questions simply cannot be answered by science, as useful and beneficial as science has in fact been. At any rate, the existence of God, the veracity of the Scriptures... these are questions and issues that you have to look into yourself and answer for yourself. There is no going to heaven on someone else's coat tails. Faith is individual and subjective, but this is not the same thing as saying that there are no objective reasons for believing in things like the existence of God and the authenticity and truthfulness of the Christian scriptures, and their superiority over the other writings of the world religions. Just remember that any question that you ask has been asked before, and has been answered by Christian thinkers, writers, theologians and philosophers... so check out the writings of people like
William Lane Craig
Alvin Plantinga
Peter Kreeft
JP Moreland
John Frame
Cornelius Van Til
Gordan Clark
Francis Schaeffer
RC Sproul
Augustine
Anselm
John Calvin
John Owen
Jonathan Edwards
BB Warfield
Robert Reymond
JI Packer
Ravi Zacharias
Paul Copan
Carl Henry
John Gerstner
etc etc etc
blessings,
ken
and Luke Timothy Johnson's book "The Real Jesus".... and others....
As far as the OP itself goes... check out some information on epistemology, especially from a Christian perspective. Robert Reymond's "Justification of Knowledge" or Richard Pratt's "Taking Every Thought Captive" or Ronald Nash's "Worldviews in Conflict". Here Nash rigidly critiques the naturalistic methodology which is based on empiricism, or as Plantinga puts it, "narrow foundationalism". This worldview, seemingly the default position for atheists and agnostics, is sadly lacking when it comes to forming a full orbed perspective on reality. Empiricism cannot answer so many of life's questions. It can't even answer many very mundane questions. Sadly, people think that if something cannot be addressed by the empirical method is is somehow automatically false. In reality, this tool is very limited. In fact, the logical positivists who claimed that nothing could be considered knowledge unless it was first provable using the empirical method failed to see that this very statement is itself a metaphysical statement that is not, itself, empirically verifiable, and thus it fails it's own test for "true" knowledge, and thus, the whole system is self referentially false. When you ask how you know that other people have minds, or that history is a reality even though it is not provable via empirical means, you are making claims to knowledge that are reasonalbe, that no sane person would doubt, yet the "proof" for these things is not something that you could prove in a laboratory. Metaphysical questions simply cannot be answered by science, as useful and beneficial as science has in fact been. At any rate, the existence of God, the veracity of the Scriptures... these are questions and issues that you have to look into yourself and answer for yourself. There is no going to heaven on someone else's coat tails. Faith is individual and subjective, but this is not the same thing as saying that there are no objective reasons for believing in things like the existence of God and the authenticity and truthfulness of the Christian scriptures, and their superiority over the other writings of the world religions. Just remember that any question that you ask has been asked before, and has been answered by Christian thinkers, writers, theologians and philosophers... so check out the writings of people like
William Lane Craig
Alvin Plantinga
Peter Kreeft
JP Moreland
John Frame
Cornelius Van Til
Gordan Clark
Francis Schaeffer
RC Sproul
Augustine
Anselm
John Calvin
John Owen
Jonathan Edwards
BB Warfield
Robert Reymond
JI Packer
Ravi Zacharias
Paul Copan
Carl Henry
John Gerstner
etc etc etc
blessings,
ken
Upvote
0