tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post112082970506198415..comments2024-03-06T03:15:58.539-05:00Comments on <b>THE NEW REFORM CLUB</b>: Al Qaeda Kills Brits and Loses the WarHunter Bakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1121110287624743012005-07-11T15:31:00.000-04:002005-07-11T15:31:00.000-04:00Cheers, Mr. Elliott. :-)Cheers, Mr. Elliott. :-)Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1121103282814440132005-07-11T13:34:00.000-04:002005-07-11T13:34:00.000-04:00tvd, you're a South Park fan, aren't you?"But I wa...tvd, you're a South Park fan, aren't you?<BR/><BR/>"But I was a devout Lutheran!" Heh.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1121024010871436542005-07-10T15:33:00.000-04:002005-07-10T15:33:00.000-04:00The Mormons.The Mormons.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1121017744567849452005-07-10T13:49:00.000-04:002005-07-10T13:49:00.000-04:00Fortunately, Pascal's is online for free:"To begin...Fortunately, Pascal's is <A HREF="http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/pensees/pensees.html" REL="nofollow">online for free</A>:<BR/><BR/>"To begin by pitying unbelievers; they are wretched enough by their condition. We ought only to revile them where it is beneficial; but this does them harm.<BR/><BR/>To pity atheists who seek, for are they not unhappy enough? To inveigh against those who make a boast of it...<BR/><BR/><BR/>Let them at least learn what is the religion they attack, before attacking it. If this religion boasted of having a clear view of God, and of possessing it open and unveiled, it would be attacking it to say that we see nothing in the world which shows it with this clearness. But since, on the contrary, it says that men are in darkness and estranged from God, that He has hidden Himself from their knowledge, that this is in fact the name which He gives Himself in the Scriptures, Deus absconditus; and finally, if it endeavours equally to establish these two things: that God has set up in the Church visible signs to make Himself known to those who should seek Him sincerely, and that He has nevertheless so disguised them that He will only be perceived by those who seek Him with all their heart..."<BR/><BR/>And the "wager" from this piece is the most well-known: If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.<BR/><BR/>Good luck, Mr. Phelps.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1121001412559063082005-07-10T09:16:00.000-04:002005-07-10T09:16:00.000-04:00James, I'm certainly willing to check out the book...James, I'm certainly willing to check out the book you suggest. I'm in the middle of an intensive 100 book reading list for my 3rd year of the Ph.D. program, but I'll happily read your book afterwards.Hunter Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1120974926149941252005-07-10T01:55:00.000-04:002005-07-10T01:55:00.000-04:00I do not, and have never, denied the existence of ...I do not, and have never, denied the existence of Jesus Christ as a historical figure and an important philosopher.<BR/><BR/>But, as Jefferson pointed out by writing the Jeffersonian Bible, you don't need all the mystical claptrap to follow his ethos.<BR/><BR/>I'll make you a deal. I'll peruse your suggestions with an open mind if you read Julian Jaynes's "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind."James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1120967848023778962005-07-09T23:57:00.000-04:002005-07-09T23:57:00.000-04:00James, this is where John and I might not totally ...James, this is where John and I might not totally agree. My position is not as "I believe in God and that settles it" as you seem to think.<BR/><BR/>My faith does have a powerful element of relationship to God through Christ, but I continue to maintain that the Jesus event looks historical to me. I suggested some reading materials in an earlier post. If you really want to explore the faith with an eye toward having it, I think you should consider reading what I've cited. Something else you might like is the bits and pieces of Pascal's Pensees, which has lots of apologetic material in it.Hunter Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1120966516592822562005-07-09T23:35:00.000-04:002005-07-09T23:35:00.000-04:00James Elliott said, "I'm afraid you've tipped your...James Elliott said, "I'm afraid you've tipped your hand here, sir. Your entire premise is based on an emotional judgment of value. I.e., it is completely relative."<BR/><BR/>Not so. I have plainly stated that my position rests on faith in God's revelation. Putting my trust in that revelation allows me to see that Anonymous' skepticism is unattractive, but I didn't come to my position because of the unattractiveness of skepticism, much less Anonymous' version of skepticism.<BR/><BR/>So my brain feels just fine, thank you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1120953872126047892005-07-09T20:04:00.000-04:002005-07-09T20:04:00.000-04:00Apart from the self-referential incoherence of suc...<I>Apart from the self-referential incoherence of such a position, can you see why it would be thoroughly unattractive to most people? Who wants to place trust in the uncertain?</I><BR/><BR/>I'm afraid you've tipped your hand here, sir. Your entire premise is based on an emotional judgment of value. I.e., it is completely relative.<BR/><BR/>Your entire absolutist argument rests on a relativistic underpinning. Tell me, sir, does cognitive dissonance hurt the brain, or is it just slightly uncomfortable, like a tickle behind your eyeballs?James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1120950449805246652005-07-09T19:07:00.000-04:002005-07-09T19:07:00.000-04:00The concept that God is great and wild and unknowa...The concept that God is great and wild and unknowable, that His plan is unfathomable to humankind is a blatant attempt to square belief in an ultimately benign end with the fact that horrible, evil things happen to perfectly fine people with incredible faith in God.<BR/><BR/>All of your arguments, ultimately, descend from the simple acceptance that there IS a divine God. Your arguments cannot hold water without acceptance of that one fact. Your logic requires that frame of reference, making it as self-referential and therefore (using Mr. Huisman's logic) just as incoherent. Your arguments descend from accepting something as absolute. This is just as morally relativistic as anything LA and I have argued.<BR/><BR/>In the order you describe, all things organize themselves that way because you believe they must, to fit in with your world view. That leads to solipsism.<BR/><BR/>All roads lead to relativism, Mr. Baker. We simply have the courage to embrace it.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1120946472538680802005-07-09T18:01:00.000-04:002005-07-09T18:01:00.000-04:00John, the Roy Clouser book is cool. I think it wi...John, the Roy Clouser book is cool. I think it will be widely read by grad students.<BR/><BR/>LA, my comment on the unscrutability of God is Biblically informed and directed at the kind of response James' mother had to losing her mother young and seemingly without sense. The temptation is to say, God can't be real if he would allow something terrible like this. The problem with that is that we then judge God or assume he can't be real as though he failed a test. The idea of the finite judging the infinite is wrong-headed, no matter how our emotions might direct us to do so.Hunter Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1120931456552830312005-07-09T13:50:00.000-04:002005-07-09T13:50:00.000-04:00Anonymous said, "Just because you wish atheism et ...Anonymous said, "Just because you wish atheism et al to be a religion doesn't make it so; lack of belief is not the same as belief in a negative."<BR/><BR/>But I did not say atheism is a religion. I said that your faith in uncertainty is religious. Atheism is the rejection of a religion, whereas skepticism is the acceptance of a religious position. You said that you have "taken the position of uncertainty," and also, "we cannot truely know anything with absolute certainty." This is not simply the denial of God characteristic of atheism. Rather, this is a deep faith committment to uncertainty. And it is religious because it has the same basic feature that all religions have: faith in something that is ultimate, something that is non-negotiable.<BR/><BR/>"It's certainly self-referential, but that in itself does not create any inconsistency. There's nothing logically wrong with the admission that we cannot truely know anything with absolute certainty."<BR/><BR/>The two statements of yours that I quote above are not just self-referential, they are self-referentially incoherent. This type of incoherency goes beyond logical incoherence or inconsistency. Logical incoherence occurs when someone holds to two different statements within the same theory or universe of discourse that mutually exclude one another. Self-referential incoherence, on the other hand, occurs when a claim is made that is in some way incompatible with its own truth. So, for example, Taoists often say, "Nothing can be said of the Tao." This is self-referentially incoherent because to say, "Nothing can be said of the Tao," is to say something of the Tao. So likewise, to say "we cannot truely know anything with absolute certainty" is to say something with absolute certainty. It is incoherent in the self-referential way, because it is incompatible with its own truth; it undermines itself.<BR/><BR/>[By the way, I have borrowed heavily from Roy Clouser's "The Myth of Religious Neutrality" in the above paragraph]<BR/><BR/>"That's Christianity's pitch, John. We're all sinners, and through acts alone we cannot pass into heaven. Only through faith in Jesus. John 3:16, Romans 10:13, Isaiah 64:6, etc."<BR/><BR/>True. But that does not mean we have carte blanche to do whatever we want. See Romans Chapter 6.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1120924265724142662005-07-09T11:51:00.000-04:002005-07-09T11:51:00.000-04:00A definition of religion has to be broad because t...<I>A definition of religion has to be broad because the reality itself is so diverse. Mine (that which you take in faith as ultimate) has the advantage of capturing pretty well all the manifestations (that we intuitively suspect as being religious).</I><BR/><BR/>Intuition isn't enough of a justification to expand your definition of religion to include that which is not religion. Just because you wish atheism et al to be a religion doesn't make it so; lack of belief is not the same as belief in a negative.<BR/><BR/><I>Actually, I already have, but in brief. I said such a position (skepticism) is self-referentially incoherent.</I><BR/><BR/>It's certainly self-referential, but that in itself does not create any inconsistency. There's nothing logically wrong with the admission that we cannot truely know anything with absolute certainty.<BR/><BR/><I>I guess I was hoping that if I pointed out the unattractiveness you might be willing to re-evaluate.</I><BR/><BR/>Sometimes reality is unpleasant. That is not a justification to reevaluate one's view of what is real.<BR/><BR/><I>Where did you get the idea Christians believe they can do whatever they want? We're the ones who believe in transcendental norms (God's law) that govern human behaviour.</I><BR/><BR/>That's Christianity's pitch, John. We're all sinners, and through acts alone we cannot pass into heaven. Only through faith in Jesus. John 3:16, Romans 10:13, Isaiah 64:6, etc.<BR/><BR/>Sure, once you have Christian faith, you feel guilty for violating the moral code that the Bible records Jesus as putting forth, but as you may have noticed, for most Christians it ends there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1120923425937606572005-07-09T11:37:00.000-04:002005-07-09T11:37:00.000-04:00... don't expect to be able to fully understand wh...<I>... don't expect to be able to fully understand why things happen in this life.</I><BR/><BR/>Hunter, how is this different from what I'm saying?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1120921294371687252005-07-09T11:01:00.000-04:002005-07-09T11:01:00.000-04:00Anonymous, I messed up my last comment. Instead of...Anonymous, I messed up my last comment. Instead of <BR/>saying "Your ultimate (uncertainty) undermines your faith (in certainty)." I should have said, "Your ultimate (uncertainty) undermines your faith (certainty). <BR/><BR/>Sorry. I hate that when that happens!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1120914913616483522005-07-09T09:15:00.000-04:002005-07-09T09:15:00.000-04:00Anonymous said, "I feel that you've created a defi...Anonymous said, "I feel that you've created a definition of faith that is so broad as to be essentially meaningless."<BR/><BR/>A definition of religion has to be broad because the reality itself is so diverse. Mine (that which you take in faith as ultimate) has the advantage of capturing pretty well all the manifestations (that we intuitively suspect as being religious).<BR/><BR/>"uncertainty is truely the only thing we can be certain about. I'm interested in how you would rebut that."<BR/><BR/>Actually, I already have, but in brief. I said such a position (skepticism) is self-referentially incoherent. Your ultimate (uncertainty) undermines your faith (in certainty). For a person such as myself who regards faith as the key to the Kingdom, an argument along these lines would not have much force, but for a person such as yourself, who puts a lot of stock in reason and argumentation, I would think self-referential incoherence would be anathema.<BR/><BR/>"I don't see how that figures into it. Just because something is unattractive doesn't make it wrong."<BR/><BR/>I guess I was hoping that if I pointed out the unattractiveness you might be willing to re-evaluate.<BR/><BR/>"I admit, a belief system in which you can effectively do whatever you want because your faith secures you paradise in the hereafter is attractive purely from a materialistic point of view." <BR/><BR/>Where did you get the idea Christians believe they can do whatever they want? We're the ones who believe in transcendental norms (God's law) that govern human behaviour. <BR/><BR/>"But something tells me that isn't why you chose it." <BR/><BR/>I really believe what I said earlier about Christian faith being a gift. We may be involved in the process, but as junior players. But if I were the one experiencing incompleteness and insecurity, I hope that I would be willing to open myself to a better alternative.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1120910102222051922005-07-09T07:55:00.000-04:002005-07-09T07:55:00.000-04:00There is something that occurs to me to say as we ...There is something that occurs to me to say as we get deeper and deeper into this discussion. Mr. Elliott and LA have punched the profundity button. <BR/><BR/>One of the things that I think many atheists/agnostics forget when they determine their own beliefs is this:<BR/><BR/>God is wholly other. God is not merely the Father. God is also truly holy. God is wild. God is dangerous, like a storm gathering over the horizon.<BR/><BR/>We are made in his image, but we are not little clones of him. We learn in Isaiah that we cannot truly know his mind, ditto from Paul. We can only know and understand in part and that is what the light of revelation plus reason/nature gets us (Paul's formula).<BR/><BR/>In other words, don't expect to be able to fully understand why things happen in this life.Hunter Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1120890698506083522005-07-09T02:31:00.000-04:002005-07-09T02:31:00.000-04:00you have placed your faith in the uncertain as bei...<I>you have placed your faith in the uncertain as being ultimate; you are certain about uncertainty.</I><BR/><BR/>I feel that you've created a definition of faith that is so broad as to be essentially meaningless. Regardless, uncertainty is truely the only thing we can be certain about. I'm interested in how you would rebut that.<BR/><BR/><I>can you see why [your point of view] would be thoroughly unattractive to most people?</I><BR/><BR/>I don't see how that figures into it. Just because something is unattractive doesn't make it wrong. I admit, a belief system in which you can effectively do whatever you want because your faith secures you paradise in the hereafter is attractive purely from a materialistic point of view. But something tells me that isn't why you chose it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1120889850232654472005-07-09T02:17:00.000-04:002005-07-09T02:17:00.000-04:00Anonymous said, "perhaps I can provide an explanat...Anonymous said, "perhaps I can provide an explanation for that wish. Those who have taken the position of uncertainty can see and understand the feeling of completeness and security that comes with the absolute certainty of faith."<BR/><BR/>Part of my position is that everyone has a religion of some sort or other; everyone has something that they take in faith as ultimate. Apparently, at least within this particular universe of discourse, what is ultimate for you is uncertainty. That is, you are voicing the religious perspective of a skeptic. You've rejected faith in God and have in its place "taken the position of uncertainty." Using my terminology, you have placed your faith in the uncertain as being ultimate; you are certain about uncertainty. <BR/><BR/>Apart from the self-referential incoherence of such a position, can you see why it would be thoroughly unattractive to most people? Who wants to place trust in the uncertain? Perhaps the lack of completeness and security you experience does not come from a lack of faith on your part, but from what you have placed your faith in.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1120888113688991872005-07-09T01:48:00.000-04:002005-07-09T01:48:00.000-04:00Let's not spoil an otherwise good discussion by pr...Let's not spoil an otherwise good discussion by proselytizing, please.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1120887702261645432005-07-09T01:41:00.000-04:002005-07-09T01:41:00.000-04:00I have to say that the thoughtful turn these comme...I have to say that the thoughtful turn these comments have taken has delighted and really rather surprised me, given the thoughts I was having re: comments policy just 24 hours ago. There have been some essential questions posed. I'm not sure installment 41 in the comments section of a post about the London bombings is the place to continue, and certainly not at 1:30 in the morning. With the indulgence of the gentlemen, I'll post something tomorrow about my views on the epistomology of faith. I can't resist one comment, though:<BR/><BR/><I>I've read the Bible, I've gone to church, and I've read many tracts. If the message there is true, then God isn't interested in giving me faith.</I> <BR/><BR/>From personal experience, Dear Anonymous: God is interested in giving you faith, in fact there is nothing more important to Him. If you do not find Him in books and tracts, He will find you some other way. Because there is, ultimately, nothing <B>but</B> Him to find.Kathy Hutchinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11851875819094837357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1120887394444410932005-07-09T01:36:00.000-04:002005-07-09T01:36:00.000-04:00The Liberal Anonymous is correct here. This is som...The Liberal Anonymous is correct here. This is something he, I, and Tlaloc have touched on in this and other threads.<BR/><BR/>The security that people of faith have with their fates and place in the world is something I envy greatly. I have written before of the the utility of religion as an existential security blanket. This is not merely a fun twist of rhetoric for me. When I consider the gaping maw of oblivion, of nonexistence, that I am fairly certain awaits me, I feel a terror I have never felt before. Not even when faced with my own mortality while being wheeled in to open-heart surgery did I feel as terrified as I do, late at night, contemplating the end. I envy people of faith their security. And I wish them well of it. <BR/><BR/>That personal experience allows me to reach my conclusion about religion's place as an existential protective barrier between paralyzing terror and the human mind. When I say that man has evolved past needing religion, I say that man now has the mental fortitude to soldier past this terror.<BR/><BR/>I simply do not agree that inherent rights do not exist without a creator. What are "rights" but the enumeration and expression of universally felt human desires, rules for surviving as social creatures within the human primate hierarchy. They are inherent because they are innate at a genetic level. They are inherent because they are good ideas. The patterns of behavior that is encoded within those desires become more and more cemented as man continues to evolve and grow. <BR/><BR/>You believe that comes from a god. I believe it comes from man's innate desire to be a successful social creature, because man as a species recognizes the need of a community for survival.<BR/><BR/>As for you, the rude Mr. Crow, you will have to prove how my reasoning is any more specious than yours. That you rely upon the shared belief in Christianity does not, ultimately, make your belief any more plausible than mine, merely more socially accepted in this forum.James F. Elliotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747033407956667363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1120884291973431322005-07-09T00:44:00.000-04:002005-07-09T00:44:00.000-04:00I have been surprised to discover in the last few ...<I> I have been surprised to discover in the last few years that there are quite a few secularists who say they would like to be able to believe in the <BR/>Christian gospel.</I><BR/><BR/>First off, I think when you say "secularists", you mean "atheists". That aside, perhaps I can provide an explanation for that wish. Those who have taken the position of uncertainty can see and understand the feeling of completeness and security that comes with the absolute certainty of faith. But to somebody who has truely considered the Universe and decided against religious belief, they can no more have faith in Christ then they can have faith that the sky is green.<BR/><BR/>So long as belief defies proof, you have no choice in your faith. I've read the Bible, I've gone to church, and I've read many tracts. If the message there is true, then God isn't interested in giving me faith.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1120882220445959232005-07-09T00:10:00.000-04:002005-07-09T00:10:00.000-04:00Anonymous said, "This seems to be rather circular....Anonymous said, "This seems to be rather circular. The proof is meaningful to you only because you believe in the veracity of your experience."<BR/><BR/>Anonymous, I said I do not regard these type of arguments as "proofs." Second, I believe that all argumentation occurs within the context of ultimate religious committments born of faith, Christian or not (including secular faith). So yes, all knowledge is at bottom circular (for everyone, not just Christians). The reason why is because you have to start somewhere, and those starting points cannot themselves be explained rationally. Indeed, it is they that determine what will be rational for us. They must be accepted instead by faith. That is, we must trust something to be revealing itself as ultimate, religiously speaking (so all of us are religious, willy-nilly). <BR/><BR/>"Now, that's fine, but it doesn't constitute better proof than a logical argument."<BR/><BR/>I never said that personal experience constitutes proof. Proofs are logical/rational arguments. I said we have something better than such arguments when it comes to God and Christian truth. We have the personal experience born of faith. Arguments for God's existence, in contrast, start from evidence, not the immediate knowledge that comes by faith. I think all of us take our experience born of the immediacy of faith as being of a higher epstemic order than an argument based on evidence. <BR/><BR/>"A lot of people "know" a lot of things to be true based on personal experience, and some of those folks are (no offense) hallucinating schizophrenics."<BR/><BR/>No offense taken. I think There is always great risk in faith, in trust. That is true not only for Christians, but also secularists. If we get it wrong in this area, I believe there are eternal repercussions. We can make arguments to defend our convictions, but as I implied earlier, their value has limits. Rational argumentation cannot substitute for faith.<BR/><BR/>"As an aside, if faith is simply a gift from God, over which we have no control, then what is the utility of evangelism?"<BR/><BR/>Although it is a gift from God, we have a part to play as well. After all, it is we who believe (I make no claim here to fully understand the relationship between God's sovereignty and human responsibility). <BR/><BR/>I would say that evangelism is a presentation of the Word of God (God's revelation) that provides the opportunity for the Holy Spirit to engender faith in that revelation within us. I have been surprised to discover in the last few years that there are quite a few secularists who say they would like to be able to believe in the <BR/>Christian gospel. Some of them have asked me how this could come about. My answer is always that they need to put themselves in a position to experience God's revelation---reading the Bible, going to church, listening to a sermon on the radio, etc. Read or listen with an open mind and ask, if you want, that God would help you to discover the truth about these matters.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8776899.post-1120873309614846522005-07-08T21:41:00.000-04:002005-07-08T21:41:00.000-04:00Some good points there, TVD. Points I've made wit...Some good points there, TVD. Points I've made without much hearing going on. <BR/><BR/>As far as the 2000 years thing goes, the Christian bit has been continuously exhaustively examined since it happened. It wasn't all at the remove of a couple of millennia.Hunter Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14961831404331998743noreply@blogger.com