From my perspective, what I am hearing from David is that in a naturalistic universe, creatures evolve. One of these creatures becomes some kind of advanced caveman who discovers thoughts in a manner other creatures don't. He discovers laws of logic or that at least logic is needed to think coherent thoughts. He discovers that he is reasoning and using reason to think coherent thoughts. He realizes he is using words to articulate sentences. He doesn't care why these things are. They are just a part of this creation just as he is in some sense.
Then one day, he sees his fellow caveman, whom he called Cain, take a knife and kill another caveman, named Abel, in order to get his female. He realizes this is wrong and proceeds to tell Cain of his "evil".Cain in turn explains to Caveman #1 that he is full of nonsense. Why just this morning he watched a starving lion eat her young. He recalled that their pet tiger had murdered an antelope last week. So he explained to the first caveman that there is no such thing as evil or murder and that the thoughts in his head were just chemical reactions (really smart caveman). Cain explained that he had just used conventional thoughts to force him to do something he did not want to do and to restrain him from doing something he wanted to do. In fact, he thought that was wrong if anything was going to be wrong.
Now Caveman #1 realized the inherent problem. If Cain is right about morality, then by logical extension, the other discoveries he had made were also problematic. So he instead tries to make a purely naturalistic case of why their lives would be better if....
Now of course one may take this and go in several directions with it. The point is presuppositions matter. I would further argue that people don't really think or live this way (even if it is in some kind of Schizophrenic way, living in a naturalistic world and a created world). Men intuitively know when something has a creator. No one would look at David's art and think David painted it beautifully because of some chemicals in his head accidentally did it that way. For the term beautiful must have a higher transcendent meaning to even use the word in this fashion. This is part of the Apostle's evidence that demonstrates that men suppress the truth and existence of God and instead exchange the Creator for that which is created.In my view, to even have a discussion such as this in a purely naturalistic world is just a complete waste of time. Eat, drink and be merry. For tomorrow we are going to die. It is no wonder that so many intuitively live this way as well. Without Christ's resurrection, if God doesn't exist, so what, and if God does exist, we are doomed.
14 comments:
Most of this post is a mere caricature and I see no reason to do more than simply point that out and move on. When you want to address my actual statements and position I'll be more than happen to discuss them.
The point is presuppositions matter.
Indeed they do. If you presuppose something and it happens to be false then you're whole view of the world is going to be off kilter.
Which is why I think its precisely in the matter of presuppositions that we should be most cautious. We should examine our presuppositions with great care and diligence
So I again ask the question that you previously failed to answer:
What makes one thing a reasonable, sound presupposition and another an unreasonable thing to take as a presupposition?
Why, for example, should I presuppose the divine inspiration of the Bible but not other writings? Or do you think we shouldn't presuppose that? In either case, why?
For the term beautiful must have a higher transcendent meaning to even use the word in this fashion.
Aesthetic experience is an emotional response. A wonderful experience and one well worth having for its own sake (intrinsic value again). I see no reason to think it needs any other meaning than that.
You always seem to be looking for meaning somewhere "out there", rather than in the nitty-gritty of living experience.
Since you're so fond of using analogies I'll break down and give you one of my own: you seem to be like a man who's looking all over the house for the glasses he's been wearing the whole time.
"When you want to address my actual statements and position I'll be more than happen to discuss them."
But that is the problem I keep pointing out. Your questions and arguments presuppose your worldview which I reject. I don't want to have to establish my worldview based upon your presuppositions. For instance, you ask a good question which I don't see how you account for asking the question in the first place.
What makes one thing a reasonable, sound presupposition and another an unreasonable thing to take as a presupposition?
To even ask the question you must assume what you already believe about laws of logic, reason ect... These "things" [my untrained sloppy way of putting it] must already be established and accounted for.
So when I ask about morality, we are both using the same word but in radically different ways. But again, you are correct that we are going around and around.
Why, for example, should I presuppose the divine inspiration of the Bible but not other writings? Or do you think we shouldn't presuppose that? In either case, why?
Great question, but from your perspective, it really is irrelevant.
For example, When I have argued with a Muslim, there are many presuppositions that I don not have not argue. But there are others that I do. There are also evidences by which the Muslim must account for. So the Muslim often uses a double standard. One for himself and one that he never applies to himself but yet holds against Christians.
Anyway, there is more that could be said obviously but a naturalist isn't going to see the issues in the same light anyway.
Great question, but from your perspective, it really is irrelevant.
Its either a sound, wise, reasonable thing to presuppose the divine inspiration and infallibility of the Bible or it isn't.
I'm asking which you think is the case and why.
Surely that's a question that relevant to anyone who values the truth.
"Surely that's a question that relevant to anyone who values the truth. "
Very good question, but one I can not answer for a naturalist, for I can not overcome a naturalist's presuppositions. I could point out Moses was God's appointed man to lead the Israelites out of Egypt. But if parting the Red Sea is impossible from the start then I would only be wasting my breath (or keystrokes).
So it would depend on what you would say to a Jewish man who believes in the Hebrew account of the Exodus. What standard of argumentation would a Hebrew have to provide to demonstrate that his Scriptures are true?
As a Christian, I would build on top of that with Jesus of Nazareth, who was raised from the dead. Is it even possible to offer an argument. I don't think so. For in the end, there is always a new argument that one will come up with to explain away the resurrection. The bar will simply be raised so that it is virtually impossible to overcome.
In other words, if I argue mere evidence, you will simply apply your own presuppositions to explain them. I can't blame you though. The cross is foolishness. How much more someone rising from the dead.
Men seek some form of law. That is the way we were created. That is why all of man's religions are law based. You have to do something. That is what makes the Christian faith unique. God does something when we can't.
So in the end, it is kind of like what you said to me earlier. If I don't see the intrinsic value of things, then you feel sorry for me. Except I actually have a transcendental reason to desire your eyes to see the truth of Christ's Person and work.
God Bless
BTW: I think I wrote a post where I can agree with the idea that one does not need to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture to come to faith in Christ's resurrection. It is simply a conclusion that follows, if Christ was raised from the dead, then....It is simply something that only a Christian recognizes.
But you are correct to note that Scripture does speak of itself in that fashion, and so your desire to follow through is commendable.
Very good question, but one I can not answer for a naturalist, for I can not overcome a naturalist's presuppositions. I could point out Moses was God's appointed man to lead the Israelites out of Egypt. But if parting the Red Sea is impossible from the start then I would only be wasting my breath (or keystrokes).
I however, do NOT take naturalism as a presupposition nor do I assume from the start that the parting of the Red Sea is impossible.
I simply require credible evidence for your claims. Of course, presuppositionalists ordinarily reject the very idea of arguing from evidence, don't they? When one has none to offer I suppose there's little else one can do.
For in the end, there is always a new argument that one will come up with to explain away the resurrection.
I have no need to "explain away" the resurrection. There simply isn't anything approaching credible basis for belief that it happened....if there were there would never have been any need to invent presuppositionalism.
Of course, presuppositionalists ordinarily reject the very idea of arguing from evidence, don't they?
I don't think so. It just depends on the person that is asking the questions. When the Apostle Paul went into the synagogues, I am certain he did not need to argue in this fashion. He simply made a proclamation of what God had done in Jesus by raising Him from the dead. He offered eye witness testimony ect.
However, when he went to Mars Hill, he still made the proclamation but did so presuming the Scriptures as God's Word while also offering evidence for the resurrection.
There simply isn't anything approaching credible basis for belief that it happened....if there were there would never have been any need to invent presuppositionalism.
Of course this answers my question. The Jews of Jesus' day all the way back to Moses were making up history by saying God delivered the people from the Egyptians. The Apostle Paul, the man supervising the killings of Christians and the man traveling around to gather them up to have them thrown into prison, was simply making up his own meeting with the risen Savior. Luke interviewed a bunch of liars. So on and on.
Arguing evidence was different prior to the wonderful advent of Higher Criticism which relied heavily on Naturalism, as well as before Evolutionism.
In many ways the ancient arguments against Christianity are the same. In other ways, they are different. It is not that presuppositionalism was made up out of thin air. It just depends with whom you are discussing.
If you are talking with a Muslim, then you have to deal with a Muslim's arguments. The same with a Buddhist, Mormon ect.
What I find fascinating today is how we don;t want to call the original Christians liars. so we tone it down by saying the wrote myths to give meaning to their lives. Of course this is based upon a bunch of assumptions, one of which is that the people of Jesus' day were gullible idiots or men who were simply not as evolved and intelligent as we are. The truth is, we find the New Testament full of skeptics.
Perhaps I should bite. What question do you have about the Bible that troubles you the most?
Well, it is late. Time to go hang out with the family.
God Bless
Mr. Ellis deserves recognition for putting up with way more of your dodgy half-track arguments than I ever could. He so directly counters and questions you and you just blaze ahead with blinders on. I'm not even saying Ellis is right. He's just relentless and amazingly focused. I feel like the burden of saving you from yourself has been lifted.
What I find fascinating today is how we don;t want to call the original Christians liars. so we tone it down by saying the wrote myths to give meaning to their lives.
Maybe some people say they just wrote myths to give meaning to their lives. I don't. Given the lack of evidence any particular conclusion about the origins of Christianity can only be speculative.
I have no problem calling the founding figure or figures of a religion a liar and charlatan when I have enough evidence to go on (as I don't hesitate to do in the case of Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism; about whom we have so much more data to go on than we do regarding more ancient religions).
Perhaps I should bite. What question do you have about the Bible that troubles you the most?
There isn't any particular question that troubles me. The Bible simply makes many extraordinary claims for which there is no credible evidence---therefore I remain unconvinced that those claims are true.
Anyway, I've asked several times why the Bible's truth should be presupposed but the scriptures and teachings of other religions and belief systems shouldn't.
Would you care to venture an answer?
If it's your intention to evade the question no matter how many times it's asked just say so and we can both save ourselves a lot of time.
"If it's your intention to evade the question no matter how many times it's asked just say so and we can both save ourselves a lot of time."
It's not that I am trying to avoid the question, but as you stated, "The Bible simply makes many extraordinary claims for which there is no credible evidence..." I simply have no idea what evidence would be required. Jesus makes an extraordinary claim that He is the Light of the World. Another one is that He claims to be God's Son in a unique fashion. He claimed He is the resurrection, ect..
So yes, Christianity has extraordinary claims. But Christianity isn't true because (like Joseph Smith) we feel it in our bellies. That is much of the problem with Evangelicalism today. Many Christians talk about experiencing Jesus instead proclaiming what God has done in history. As the Apostle Paul's encounter with Agrippa.
Act 26:25 But Paul *said, "I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I utter words of sober truth.
Act 26:26 "For the king knows about these matters, and I speak to him also with confidence, since I am persuaded that none of these things escape his notice; for this has not been done in a corner.
Act 26:27 "King Agrippa, do you believe the Prophets? I know that you do."
Act 26:28 Agrippa replied to Paul, "In a short time you will persuade me to become a Christian."
Just as God delivered the Jews from Egypt, so God had again done something miraculous when He raised Christ from the dead. This was not done in a corner and these things have not escaped the King's notice. But just as the King would not believe, we often don't either. We are just not going to allow our entire systems (whatever they be) to be overthrown by some Nazarene who lived 2,000 years ago.
So your criticism of Joseph Smith is valid. The historical evidence is clear that he was a fraud. It is also clear from historical sources that Muhammad could not read and was ignorant about Christian beliefs. If Muhammad was a true prophet, then his understanding about the Trinity, for instance, would be accurate. It has always been interesting that Muslims know that Christians don't define the Trinity by the Creeds because the Koran says so. They also have some presuppositional problems from the start. But again, answering such questions can be become difficult because it depends on where you want to start.
This is why I asked for a specific question since maybe then I might be able to start answering the bigger questions in contrast to other faiths.
In the past (I assume the same anonymous) has given me a list of problems. When I attempted to deal with just one on his list, he just ignored me. Having gotten this far, I have no doubt you have particular questions that may flesh out some bigger questions.
Anyway, now 80% of my family is recovering from the stomach Flu. So if I don't respond very quickly, please forgive me.
If you really want a fuller explanation as to the differences between Christianity and Islam, then might I suggest http://www.answering-islam.org/ and also James White (www.aomin.org) has done several debates with Shabir Alli. I attended one debate in which the historical event of the cross was debated, since most Muslims reject that Jesus died on the cross.
Those two have been real helpful in helping me understand Islam. Listening to Islamic apologists explain what they believe and why they reject Christianity for themselves is quite good.
There is another example from the Bible itself that addresses your question. In Acts 17, Paul went to Mars Hill. It was there he contrasted his God with all of the other gods. Now I am certain that a similar thought would have come into the minds of the people that would be similar to yours. Why Paul's God verses their own. Here is Paul's answer.
Act 17:22 So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects.
Act 17:23 "For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, 'TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.' Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.
Act 17:24 "The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands;
Act 17:25 nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things;
Act 17:26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,
Act 17:27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;
Act 17:28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children.'
Act 17:29 "Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.
Act 17:30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,
Act 17:31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."
Act 17:32 Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some began to sneer, but others said, "We shall hear you again concerning this."
My point in raising this text is that I know some of your objections right away. One of them might be that other religious faiths have resurrections and ect.. But actually, even though there are some of the myths that have some form of rising from the dead, obviously they rejected a bodily resurrection since the physical creation was something to abandon.
Notice Paul's thinking. God created us all. He created the physical universe "good". God plans to restore the physical creation to its state prior to the fall. All of this hinges on one event. The resurrection of Christ.
That is what separates Christianity from the rest of man's religions.
Anonymous said...
Mr. Ellis deserves recognition for putting up with way more of your dodgy half-track arguments than I ever could. He so directly counters and questions you and you just blaze ahead with blinders on. I'm not even saying Ellis is right. He's just relentless and amazingly focused. I feel like the burden of saving you from yourself has been lifted.
RS: I think you share the presuppositions of David Ellis and so are somewhat blind to what Howard is saying. It is true that the Bible says that people are blind to spiritual truths and so it should not be surprising when people are blind to spiritual truth. David demands evidence for Howard's position and yet the glory of God shines forth in nature and David every day. He does not want to see the evidence that is presented. Everytime he uses reason and logic he is borrowing from the worldview of the Christian and using that which his own worldview cannot support.
Post a Comment