Reason and Research as opposed to Rhetoric on Religious Claims

[com7fy8]

So I would argue that if the question is engaging truth claims and how one moves from non-belief to belief as early converts to Christianity did, the prescription is rationality and training in how to engage rhetorically, and study of logic, and the like.

The Bible says Paul reasoned from the scriptures. But also we have that God draws a person and ones need to be renewed to repentance. I think such renewing means how God changes and prepares one's heart so one becomes able to trust in Jesus.

Trusting can be a much deeper thing, by the way, I think . . . than getting ideas together. But yes ideas are included.

So, I consider that while ones might be involved with logic and science . . . our deeper character can effect how honest and perceptive we are for handling what we have about logic and science. And our character determines if and how well we can submit to how God guides us "continually" (in Isaiah 58:11).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Great list. Lots of new authors for me to engage. Thx.

As you can see, I just added some... "more" ... in another thread I created.

 

[Uber Genius]

The Bible says Paul reasoned from the scriptures. But also we have that God draws a person and ones need to be renewed to repentance. I think such renewing means how God changes and prepares one's heart so one becomes able to trust in Jesus.

Trusting can be a much deeper thing, by the way, I think . . . than getting ideas together. But yes ideas are included.

So, I consider that while ones might be involved with logic and science . . . our deeper character can effect how honest and perceptive we are for handling what we have about logic and science. And our character determines if and how well we can submit to how God guides us "continually" (in Isaiah 58:11).

Paul also reasoned about all kinds of religious philosophy not mentioned in the scriptures (Epicureans and Stoics) not to mentioned gave arguments about Jesus not found in the scriptures where he put forth the argument:

Old Testament prophecy about messiah and
Old Testament prophecy about a suffering servant
are best explained in the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth

That is a lot of evidence.

Paul would also need to know how to respond to the 7 or 8 schools of Jewish thought.

So in contrast to Paul studying these schools of thought so as to engage in comparison and contrasting them with Christian thought and further develop persuasive arguments for why Christian worldview more accurately represented the world we live in, you initially replied,

"And how much time are you spending, and your attention, on what amounts to nothing?"

You called this investment "dead."

That is where we differ.

Just as modern science owes itself to Christians who thought God expected us to understand the world he created. And to work hard to do that. So too Christian philosophers must engage ideas deeply in order to persuade people to accurately understand God's world. No waste, not dead, stewards who are willing to do the hard intellectual work to win some. Just like Paul.

Now not all are evangelists, that is true. But that wasn't your point was it? Part of renewing the mind is loving God with all of it and developing it.

But all knowledge is God's knowledge. Not just scripture knowledge it seems.

 

[com7fy8]

So in contrast to Paul studying these schools of thought so as to engage in comparison and contrasting them with Christian thought and further develop persuasive arguments for why Christian worldview more accurately represented the world we live in, you initially replied,

"And how much time are you spending, and your attention, on what amounts to nothing?"

You called this investment "dead."

That is where we differ.

This is what I wrote, with a little more context >

And how much time are you spending, and your attention, on what amounts to nothing? We can point at how ones are not exactly, or we can share what has really helped us to get more real with God and learn how to love each and every person the way Jesus wants < would this not be the basic purpose for anything we do and study?

In context, here, I think one can see I mean to probe if your study has directly helped you to "get more real with God and learn how to love each and every person the way Jesus wants". And then I asked, "would this not be the basic purpose for anything we do and study?"

So, I was asking you to speak for yourself, about if and how much your intellectual efforts have helped you with this. I was not actually drawing a conclusion, but inviting you to speak for yourself.

I don't need to spend much time dissecting what is dead. But my attention needs to be to Jesus >

"'Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.'" (Matthew 11:29)

So, what philosophy has helped you with this?

I understand how I could get quite busy and tangled with trying to figure out what a number of world views really mean, when then I might discover that someone who claims one does not even believe how someone else represented it. I go easy on assuming I can understand what a philosopher really means and where he or she is coming from, and I let each individual speak for oneself about what one means if he or she claims to have some world vie; then offer what I have

And in case someone does have what is not our Christian worldview, I would say it is dead. And dissecting it might not help, when attention can go to who Jesus is and how He has us becoming in His love . . . how we become changed in our character, not only in what we think.

But you have answered my question, if I now understand you right, by saying you use your studies in order so you can understand and relate on the level of people of differing worldviews. And Paul does say he became all things to all men and he discussed things in the marketplace, in order to reach people.

But a point I meant is we need to make sure our attention stays with what I find to be the main focus of New Testament scripture and Christian ministry > Colossians 1:28-29. And so, I also meant by my probing to ask if you are first keeping focused on how we become more and more transformed in our nature to be "perfect in Christ", as Paul speaks of in Colossians 1:28-29.

 

[Uber Genius]

This is what I wrote, with a little more context >In context, here, I think one can see I mean to probe if your study has directly helped you to "get more real with God and learn how to love each and every person the way Jesus wants". And then I asked, "would this not be the basic purpose for anything we do and study?"

So, I was asking you to speak for yourself, about if and how much your intellectual efforts have helped you with this. I was not actually drawing a conclusion, but inviting you to speak for yourself.

I understand how I could get quite busy and tangled with trying to figure out what a number of world views really mean, when then I might discover that someone who claims one does not even believe how someone else represented it. I go easy on assuming I can understand what a philosopher really means and where he or she is coming from, and I let each individual speak for oneself about what one means if he or she claims to have some world vie; then offer what I have

And in case someone does have what is not our Christian worldview, I would say it is dead. And dissecting it might not help, when attention can go to who Jesus is and how He has us becoming in His love . . . how we become changed in our character, not only in what we think.

But you have answered my question, if I now understand you right, by saying you use your studies in order so you can understand and relate on the level of people of differing worldviews. And Paul does say he became all things to all men and he discussed things in the marketplace, in order to reach people.

But a point I meant is we need to make sure our attention stays with what I find to be the main focus of New Testament scripture and Christian ministry > Colossians 1:28-29. And so, I also meant by my probing to ask if you are first keeping focused on how we become more and more transformed in our nature to be "perfect in Christ", as Paul speaks of in Colossians 1:28-29.

If I misunderstood your message I recant.

It seems that descriptors about Philosophical Study "amounting to nothing", and that we shouldn't, "waste time on what is dead," might be construed as typical anti-intellectualism.

I have already made the distinction between how we engage in evangelism and how we mature in Christ.

I don't think the NT authors ever construed these as an either/or scenario.

So our attention can be on Christian ministry AND focused on well-informed discussions with non-believers based on philosophical study.

Perhaps we are in agreement and I misunderstood.

 

[com7fy8]

If I misunderstood your message I recant.

It seems that descriptors about Philosophical Study "amounting to nothing", and that we shouldn't, "waste time on what is dead," might be construed as typical anti-intellectualism.

People often have been right about how I have been wrong, and I didn't have a clue.

So . . . yes, we can talk about philosophy and other things. What I think I meant is there is stuff which is not getting the intellectual person anywhere good, plus it can be so complicated so it can take a lot of time to try to figure out what the person is saying, when it amounts to nothing.

But not all philosophy is such. Or, it can be right but only in some limited area which does not deal with a lot more which needs attention.

For one example, let's say one's philosophy is "Don't worry about anything." Yes, the Bible says don't worry about anything > Philippians 4:6-7 < but where one goes with not worrying can be in very different directions. Philippians 4:6-7 means to go into more and more prayer and how God's peace keeps our hearts and minds in Jesus. But someone might take not worrying in the direction of not feeling he or she needs to care about other people and their feelings and needs . . . not worrying, as long as the person is doing find, oneself.

So, I don't mean all intellectual stuff. But we need to discern what is worthwhile to pursue and invest our attention in it. And beware how ones can have very complicated ideas and they don't go anywhere we need to go, and it is likely we need our attention elsewhere. And what is each person's motives behind one's ideas? Two different people can have the exact same idea, but very different ways of using and/or acting on it.

And I am concerned about, like I said, I think, how ones can name a philosopher and idea, and we don't know for sure if people really have understood the person; and not only that but ones can just claim and assume that everyone in the philosophical school has the same ideas and understanding.

I prefer to let an individual speak for oneself . . . and ask, what has helped you about what you believe, please?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Recently on this apologetics forum while helping "Seekers," gain knowledge about philosophy of religion, the best atheist apologists, a few examples of good arguments for atheism, far from being "liked" or receiving "Winner," accolades, I was bombarded with mocking comments, fake definitions, straw man fallacies, question begging arguments. Rhetorical flourish and pseudo-intellectual arguments that would hardly fool a 12th-grader were proffered.

It seems that just as there are prerequisites for most college classes, so to for a cogent discussion on the weightier issues of philosophy of religion. I will let WLC make my case.

World-renowned apologist and Philosophy of Religion Professor, William Lane Craig, makes the case for a philosophical foundation when discussing religion:

"By employing the high standards of reasoning characteristic of analytic philosophy we can powerfully formulate apologetic arguments for both commending and defending the Christian worldview. In recent decades, analytic philosophers of religion have shed new light on the rationality and warrant of religious belief, on arguments for the existence of God, on divine attributes such as necessity, eternity, omnipotence, omniscience, and goodness, on the problem of suffering and evil, on the nature of the soul and immortality, on the problem of miracles, and even on peculiarly Christian doctrines like the Trinity, incarnation, atonement, original sin, revelation, hell, and prayer. The wealth of material which is available to the Christian apologist through the labor of analytic philosophers of religion is breath-taking."

Read more: Apologetics Training - Advice to Christian Apologists | Reasonable Faith

Often when encountering both Theistic (Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, Kent Hovind) and atheistic (Richard Dwakins, Larry Krauss, Peter Boghossian, Peter Akins, Jerry Coyne, etc.) apologists, no philosophical training is apparent in their arguments.

Please comment on your favorite apologists and their concomitant contributions to the body of knowledge with regards to our religious understanding of the world.

Example:
Theist - Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Kalam)
Atheist - Logic and Theism (one of Sobel's arguments)

The fact that theists apologics can only rely on "arguments" and even the fact that theism even requires "apologetics", says all one needs to know.

For example, there is no journal called "biology apologetics" or "physics apologetics".
These fields don't seem to have a need for "arguments", to make their case.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The fact that theists apologics can only rely on "arguments" and even the fact that theism even requires "apologetics", says all one needs to know.

For example, there is no journal called "biology apologetics" or "physics apologetics".
These fields don't seem to have a need for "arguments", to make their case.

Right. Because the epistemology of science should properly be working with Methodological Naturalism in which it is recognized that God cannot be a controlled variable in any kind of experimental science, and thus it should be assumed for the sake of method and consistency that anything 'divine' really should not be considered as available for direct scientific consideration.

Naturalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Now, if you feel you instead have to go the way of Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins in handling scientific practice and in assessing its epistemic reach as being one that enables scientists to grasp at the presence (or lack of presence) of a god or other divine influences within the structures of our universe, then you are working in an epistemology that subscribes to Philosophical Naturalism (...which is basically a reflection of "scientism" as well as of "atheism.")

Regardless of the use of either Methodological Naturalism or Philosophical Naturalism, Biblical narratives and situational letters of theology like Paul's are written works which reside within an epistemology that is only partially open to historical investigation, and not much in the way of any scientific investigation; and these written works also just happen to be revelational in nature as well. So, there are claims in the Bible that are revelational in nature and therefore not open much to empirical study. Needless to say, this makes it very hard for those who want to "verify" all of the Bible's contents before they dip even one of their small toes into Christian waters of belief ...

Hence, unless God Himself imparts some additional information into the epistemic structure within the mind of any one particular human being-- or unless He just "shows up" in an empirically evident way--then any one of us is pretty much "out of luck" on the epistemic front as it relates to our being able to see God's (Christ's) presence in the world or in our existential situations.

 

[Silmarien]

The fact that theists apologics can only rely on "arguments" and even the fact that theism even requires "apologetics", says all one needs to know.

For example, there is no journal called "biology apologetics" or "physics apologetics".
These fields don't seem to have a need for "arguments", to make their case.

Physics and mathematics don't rely on proofs?

That's news to me.

 

[variant]

Physics and mathematics don't rely on proofs?

That's news to me.

Arguments are not proofs.

Most sciences don't rely on proofs, but rather evidence.

 

[Silmarien]

Arguments are not proofs.

Quite a number of the arguments for the existence of God take the form of logical proofs.

Most sciences don't rely on proofs, but rather evidence.

Of course, but unless we know "all we need to know" about mathematics because it functions with proofs instead of empirical evidence, the point still stands.

 

[variant]

Quite a number of the arguments for the existence of God take the form of logical proofs.

If only they were in any way comparable to mathematical proofs that might be impressive.

People making deductive arguments don't usually label them that way when they want to be taken seriously. The use of the term "argument" is a deliberate choice by philosophers to show you the self awareness that they understand that what they are doing is not quite like mathematical proofs.

Religious arguments rarely demonstrate much of anything.

Of course, but unless we know "all we need to know" about mathematics because it functions with proofs instead of empirical evidence, the point still stands.

We don't if you were curious, mathematics, like most studies, expands via evidence as well as deduction.

Religion never expands at all because there is little in the way of determining which religious ideas are correct. People believe in religions and judge religious arguments via general human appeal.

That you would compare this to math or science is funny, because by comparison religion is quite squishy.

Apologetics is a philosophical and rhetorical domain not one of study or demonstration. Without demonstration, you guys might as well be blind people debating Monet.

 

[quatona]

Right. Because the epistemology of science should properly be working with Methodological Naturalism in which it is recognized that God cannot be a controlled variable in any kind of experimental science, and thus it should be assumed for the sake of method and consistency that anything 'divine' really should not be considered as available for direct scientific consideration.

Yep. Now the thing is: if there is/were some sort of Methodological Supernaturalism or Supernatural Epistemology (that isn´t fine tuned after your, my or someone else´s preferred supernatural belief) we could actually start discussing claims about the supernatural in a rational way.
Until then, the appropriate answer to "There are more things in heaven and earth..." is: "Yes, most likely - but that doesn´t support your claims about them."

Regardless of the use of either Methodological Naturalism or Philosophical Naturalism, Biblical narratives and situational letters of theology like Paul's are written works which reside within an epistemology that is only partially open to historical investigation, and not much in the way of any scientific investigation; and these written works also just happen to be revelational in nature as well. So, there are claims in the Bible that are revelational in nature and therefore not open much to empirical study. Needless to say, this makes it very hard for those who want to "verify" all of the Bible's contents before they dip even one of their small toes into Christian waters of belief ...

Look, here you are already contrasting Methodological Naturalism with a particular religion. In lack of an unbiased Supernatural Epistemology I am not impressed.

Hence, unless God Himself imparts some additional information into the epistemic structure within the mind of any one particular human being-- or unless He just "shows up" in an empirically evident way--then any one of us is pretty much "out of luck" on the epistemic front as it relates to our being able to see God's (Christ's) presence in the world or in our existential situations.

Uhm, from the pov of the unbiased observer it appears pretty convenient to excempt your personal perception from being put to the same standards as everybody else´s - unless of course you keep your faith a personal thing and don´t step up using big words such as truth/Truth/TRUTH (general you here).

 

[DogmaHunter]

Physics and mathematics don't rely on proofs?

That's news to me.

I didn't say "proofs". I said "apologetic arguments".

 

[DogmaHunter]

Quite a number of the arguments for the existence of God take the form of logical proofs.

Calling them that, doesn't not make them such.

Of course, but unless we know "all we need to know" about mathematics because it functions with proofs instead of empirical evidence, the point still stands.

Math is completely worthless unless it reflects empirical reality.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Right. Because the epistemology of science should properly be working with Methodological Naturalism in which it is recognized that God cannot be a controlled variable in any kind of experimental science, and thus it should be assumed for the sake of method and consistency that anything 'divine' really should not be considered as available for direct scientific consideration.

Naturalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Now, if you feel you instead have to go the way of Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins in handling scientific practice and in assessing its epistemic reach as being one that enables scientists to grasp at the presence (or lack of presence) of a god or other divine influences within the structures of our universe, then you are working in an epistemology that subscribes to Philosophical Naturalism (...which is basically a reflection of "scientism" as well as of "atheism.")

Regardless of the use of either Methodological Naturalism or Philosophical Naturalism, Biblical narratives and situational letters of theology like Paul's are written works which reside within an epistemology that is only partially open to historical investigation, and not much in the way of any scientific investigation; and these written works also just happen to be revelational in nature as well. So, there are claims in the Bible that are revelational in nature and therefore not open much to empirical study. Needless to say, this makes it very hard for those who want to "verify" all of the Bible's contents before they dip even one of their small toes into Christian waters of belief ...

You can use expensive buzzwords all you like.

The fact of the matter is that the only reason that gods and the supernatural "can't be studied" scientifically, is because they are without any manifestation. And they are defined explicitly in such a way that they simply can not be empirically studied.

In short, they are indistinguishable from non-existant things.

Hence, unless God Himself imparts some additional information into the epistemic structure within the mind of any one particular human being-- or unless He just "shows up" in an empirically evident way--

How would I know that it's "god" that's "revealing" himself and that it's not just me talking to myself, hearing voices or being just mistaken?

then any one of us is pretty much "out of luck" on the epistemic front as it relates to our being able to see God's (Christ's) presence in the world or in our existential situations.

Not "any one of us". Instead, only those people who insist on claiming and believing that god is real...

In a worldview where gods aren't considered to be real, it is actually quite normal and fully up to expectation, that these gods don't show up anywhere in reality.

That's kind of what non-existing things do: not show up.

 

[KCfromNC]

Quite a number of the arguments for the existence of God take the form of logical proofs.

So do lots of mathematical concepts which don't actually correspond to anything in external reality. So?

 

[Silmarien]

That you would compare this to math or science is funny, because by comparison religion is quite squishy.

I am not comparing religion to science or math. That would be ridiculous. I am specifically addressing the idea that religious claims requiring argumentation is problematic, as if argumentation is somehow a bad thing, when mathematics also requires rigorous use of proofs. Stop reading things into my post that were not there.

Religion never expands at all because there is little in the way of determining which religious ideas are correct. People believe in religions and judge religious arguments via general human appeal.

That's actually not true. There's plenty of archaeological research and other scholarship that goes on that can help us get an idea of how Christianity was practiced in its earliest years, what influences shaped it, and so forth. The greater understanding of Second Temple Judaism, for example. Obviously this doesn't make Christianity true, but it can knock out modern, anachronistic interpretations of it.

Also, there has been a pretty clear evolution from polytheistic to monotheistic approaches to religion, both in Western (Greek) and Eastern (Indian) societies. There are philosophical reasons behind that development.

Calling them that, doesn't not make them such.

You've never run across Gödel's Ontological Proof? Whether or not it's sound or valid, you can't really say it's not a logical proof.

Math is completely worthless unless it reflects empirical reality.

Well, at least you're being a consistent positivist.

 

[variant]

I am not comparing religion to science or math. That would be ridiculous. I am specifically addressing the idea that religious claims requiring argumentation is problematic, as if argumentation is somehow a bad thing, when mathematics also requires rigorous use of proofs. Stop reading things into my post that were not there.

It is problematic lacking some sufficient evidence. If all arguments for god were deductive arguments then they would only demonstrate internal consistency within the group of ideas rather than some application to the real world.

Theology is indeed a set of arguments, the problem becomes determining if it is merely that.

That's actually not true. There's plenty of archaeological research and other scholarship that goes on that can help us get an idea of how Christianity was practiced in its earliest years, what influences shaped it, and so forth. The greater understanding of Second Temple Judaism, for example. Obviously this doesn't make Christianity true, but it can knock out modern, anachronistic interpretations of it.

Knowing how christianity was or is practiced doesn't demonstrate any of it's claims, nor does it help us determine what ideas are correct or incorrect in terms of reality.

When I talk about demonstration I mean things that will tell us that A is true and ~A is false with respect to the object being discussed.

Theology never really get's there, what it does is teach us about religion, which isn't even what it supposedly studies.

Also, there has been a pretty clear evolution from polytheistic to monotheistic approaches to religion, both in Western (Greek) and Eastern (Indian) societies. There are philosophical reasons behind that development.

There are reasons for the evolution sure but what does that tell us? That ideas about God have changed over time? Does it tell us something about God or does it tell us something about humanity?

 

[variant]

Yep. Now the thing is: if there is/were some sort of Methodological Supernaturalism or Supernatural Epistemology (that isn´t fine tuned after your, my or someone else´s preferred supernatural belief) we could actually start discussing claims about the supernatural in a rational way.
Until then, the appropriate answer to "There are more things in heaven and earth..." is: "Yes, most likely - but that doesn´t support your claims about them."

Since the phrase "methodological naturalism", can always be replaced with "having some sort of evidence for your assertions" I have no good reason to remove it from my epistemology.