I recently had a conversation with an atheist on seedlings Blog. I thought some of you who have wondered about presuppositional apologetics as opposed to mere evidential apologetics could see the difference in how one proclaims the Gospel.
I truly believe atheism loves to attack Christianity but hates the fact that someone may question atheism. It takes such pride in reason that it simply cannot believe anyone would be dumb enough to question its primacy. It seems their presuppositions should just be assumed, not demonstrated. I will let the reader decide who answers the questions in this discussion and who just makes assertions and assumptions and refuses to answer direct questions.
So I'd like some feedback. Was the conversation an actual conversation? Did I speak in a godly manner? Did I remain consistent in my thinking? Where did I go wrong? What would the Apostles have done differently if they were here today?
This link is to the actual Blog.
I have also uploaded a slightly edited version where I cut out everyone else's posts to make it more readable. Click here. It is a Word document.
A La Carte (April 25)
22 hours ago
8 comments:
I'm glad you're looking back and weighing your conduct, as we discussed here. I often have to do that myself. I often get carried away when I'm debating issues, and have to rethink my approach later.
I'll confess I didn't follow the thread all that carefully (even though it was on my own blog!). Since you've asked, I will say that at times you seemed pretty aggressive. Some of your direct questions weren't answered, so you kept coming back to them -- if I were limejelly I might have felt as if my nose was being shoved into something I didn't want to eat. Later in the post I recall you using a combative term ("destroying" arguments -- Hegel) that seemed more oppositional than discursive. Maybe that's what was meant when your "God bless" signoff was called passive aggressive -- it seemed tacked on at the end of an aggressive argument.
Of course no one's going to be cornered by argument into the kingdom, and I know you know this. Maybe another approach could echo back the materialistic arguments to show you understand them, then explain why you yourself still feel justified in believing the Gospel. That would provide the ready defense commanded in I Peter 3, while still allowing the other person time and space to consider your views without having to respond immediately.
Either way, as I said at the end of that thread, it's good for both you and the other person to experience the entrenched nature of your positions. Neither side is a pushover -- and a certain respect has to come from recognizing that, even if it only strengthens opposition to each other's views.
god-believers really do spend a lot of time talking complete bollocks.
The bible says its right so it must be right.
Is that it?
Thanks for the constructive criticism forester. I appreciate your thinking on this matter. I have definitely engaged a group of people that are intellectually way above me. You raise the bar in my thinking.
As for Simon, I have no idea what you are talking about.
"The bible says its right so it must be right."
In some sense this is true. If the Creator tells us about Himself and the creation, is it really disputable?
Should I believe an atheist's presuppositions because an atheist says so?
I love the fact that atheists work so hard at discovering the universe. It amazes me how scientific and thoughtful they are. They are in full discovery mode. It is quite infectious. How much more for the Christian should this be!
Perhaps maybe because all men are religious in some sense that "religious" people are satisfied and those who do not believe in God are not satisfied.
It really is a shame that that would be the case. Although I don't really think it always is.
Forester challenged me to engage in the materialism arguments to show that I understand them. Perhaps I should engage in it more, but instead I asked the "why" questions and never got any answers.
"god-believers really do spend a lot of time talking complete bollocks."
I have no idea why atheists talk at all. What are they arguing for? In the end everything is meaningless anyway, so why bother?
I am always amazed at the great lengths man will go surpress the truth.
Perhaps forester is right. Perhaps I have become a bit too brash. Having discussions via internet is always more difficult, so I try to be quicker and more to the point. In person, I hope I would be perceived in a better light.
I saw you in person on that news video, and you looked great! (Or, at least, your shoulder did!)
Please challenge me right back when I get aggressive (or insulting, or anything else). Look around at my various comments on different blogs and you'll definitely find examples.
I rarely get insulted. I do appreciate your feedback.
Do you use the products of scientific discovery, then, Howard? Oh yes, you do - at least a computer, if nothing else. I take it you don't use hospitals or modern medicine, as that would be hypocritical of you.
I'm sure you'll say I'm being hypocrytical because I use your god's universe but deny his existence.
The only difference is your belief is irrational.
The only differnce is science knows it doesn't know much about the universe whereas religion says it knows everything.
Like you say - if we'd all been contentedly religious, there'd be no modern medicine, cars, planes, electricity.
You're admitting that if it weren't for atheists we'd all still be living in mud huts and have a life span of about 25-30 years.
Or did I get that wrong?
ok, that was two differences.
"Do you use the products of scientific discovery, then, Howard? Oh yes, you do - at least a computer, if nothing else. I take it you don't use hospitals or modern medicine, as that would be hypocritical of you."
This is a flat denial of history. It is correct to say that religious Tradition may keep people enslaved. I firmly believe that the Reformation and the Christian scientists who were freed from medieval traditions brought us some of the greatest scientific discoveries ever (not atheists).
"The only difference is your belief is irrational."
This is exactly what I have been arguing. I am saying atheism is irrational because it denies it's own presuppositions while bashing Christianity's. Yet it cannot account for its presuppositions, and uses the Christian's worldview which accounts for the laws of logic, morality, and reason ect. against itself.
"You're admitting that if it weren't for atheists we'd all still be living in mud huts and have a life span of about 25-30 years.
Or did I get that wrong?"
There are a lot of factors in history that explain how we got technologically advanced in the last couple of huundred years. But atheists deny sound historical investigation. Therefore how does one even begin to discuss such things?
If we had serious historical investigation, the methods we would use and the assumptions we would make would determine the outcome. Since atheists seem to not want to go down the historical road, what do you do?
"The only differnce is science knows it doesn't know much about the universe whereas religion says it knows everything."
Who is making this claim?
"I'm sure you'll say I'm being hypocrytical because I use your god's universe but deny his existence."
I have been saying that all along. I firmly believe men like yourself use the tools God has given you to make and do great things, all the while actively surpressing the source for that ability and knowledge.
All men are idolatrous. It is what man is. Idolatrous men surpress the truth of God. That is what they do.
I realize you think that claim is silly. I agree. It has seemed silly since Jesus showed up. It has seemed silly since Jesus told the pharisees of His day.
It was silly to the hearers of Paul as well. They even stoned him and beat him for it's silliness.
The question really is, is the Christian worldview and presuppositions consistent with the world around us? I say yes.
Post a Comment