SUNDAY NIGHTS—NEW RADIO PROGRAM on internet

Information regarding The Narrow Path Ministries.
User avatar
kaufmannphillips
Posts: 585
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:00 pm

Re: SUNDAY NIGHTS—NEW RADIO PROGRAM on internet

Post by kaufmannphillips » Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:26 pm

kaufmannphillips wrote:
I do not deny the possibility of logic. I afford the possibility that logic is off-kilter.

brody196 wrote:
But you just used logic to afford that possibility. Bottom line is: You have to assume that there is a universal standard by which to judge truth. If everything has the possibility of being wrong or different, you still have to apply the universal laws of logic and reason to deduce what is wrong or different.
:arrow: Yes, I use reason to afford the possibility that reason is off-kilter. So?

Personal Trainer: Good morning, Mr. Clayman. How’re you doing?

Clayman: I’m feeling OK. I’m being careful about using my left leg, though, because there’s a chance the knee might give out.

Personal Trainer: Didn’t you use that leg to walk into the work-out room?

Clayman: Um – yes. I said I’m being careful about it. I didn’t say I’d amputated it.

Personal Trainer: So it’s reliable, then.

Clayman: No, it’s not. I said there’s a chance it might give out.

Personal Trainer: Well, make up your mind! Is it reliable, or is it unusable?

Clayman: … How did you get this job?


:arrow: I do not "have to assume that there is a universal standard by which to judge truth." I may operate from the premise that there is an ultimate reality. But I do not have to assume that this premise itself fits a category of reality or unreality or truth or falsehood. Those categories might prove inapplicable or inadequate in ways that I could scarcely conceptualize, if at all.

:arrow: One problem with your final statement is that affording the “possibility of being wrong or different” does not amount to positing the certainty that anything is wrong or different. Everything might be neither wrong nor different. Then again, the categories of rightness and wrongness and sameness and differentness and being and nonbeing might all prove inapplicable or inadequate.

Now, one might object to one or more of these comments: that doesn’t make sense! But if my basic outlook posits that there is a limit and fallibility to human reason, then where is the inherent problem if the concept eventually transgresses the bounds of human reason?

Another problem with your final statement is that you imagine "laws of logic and reason" to be "universal." Simply because humans make impressive use of their logic and reason, does not mean that these paradigms are universally applicable. Even in the limited range of human experience, we are not constrained to paradigms of reason alone; some of the most significant elements of human experience are irrational and ineffable.

Now, let me recount a recently-published “Peanuts” cartoon –

Lucy: Schroeder, what if you and I were to get married some day, and what if we…

Schroeder: I can’t comprehend what you’re saying.

Lucy: Well, what I mean is, if you and I ever get married, will….

Schroeder: No, I can’t comprehend that… I can’t conceive that ever happening…

Lucy: Well, let’s just say it did, and….

Schroeder: No, I just can’t conceive of such a thing.. It’s like thinking about what lies beyond outer space.. My mind can’t comprehend that….

Lucy: But can’t we just say that by some miracle we did get married, and….

Schroeder: No, my mind cannot even begin to grasp such a thought… It reels… The whole concept is simply beyond my comprehension.

Lucy: My Aunt Marian was right… Never try to discuss marriage with a musician!


Here Schroeder pleads (however facetiously) that a certain matter is beyond his ability to conceive. But his personal inability does not establish a universal state of affairs. If “Peanuts” grew up to become “The Young and the Restless,” then Schroeder could wind up married to Lucy under circumstances that he never anticipated, and that he even took no active part in.

Neither you nor I may be able to conceptualize a universality where categories of truth or reality are not inexorable. This may tell us something about the parameters of how we conceptualize. But it does not necessarily tell us about universality.

Let us consider a discussion at a frontier:

Gerry and Francis journey to the frontier of their homeland, and find an immense wall that they cannot see past, and that they lack the means to climb over or burrow through.

Francis: I wonder what’s on the other side!

Gerry: There is no other side.

Francis: How can you say that? You have no way of knowing.

Gerry: Well… if there is an other side, it’s no different than this side.

Francis: And how can you say that? You have no way of knowing that, either! The other side could be completely different from this side.

Gerry: It couldn’t be completely different. It would at least have to have gravity and magnetism and other basic laws of nature.

Francis: It could have the same nature as this side. But we don’t know that for sure. It could have a different set of laws, or no laws of nature at all.

Gerry: No laws of nature at all? What would that look like?

Francis: I have trouble imagining what that would look like. But I imagine that I have a limited imagination.

Gerry: And what if there were no laws of nature on the other side? That would mean that there are no universal laws of nature.

Francis: So?

Gerry: That would mean "anything goes"! Anything could happen!

Francis: Anything might happen. Everything might happen. Nothing might happen.

Gerry: For nothing to happen, everything would have to stop happening, and that would be something happening.

Francis: Not if nothing had ever happened.

Gerry: If nothing had ever happened, then we couldn’t be having this conversation. We wouldn’t even exist.

Francis: Maybe we aren’t. Maybe we don’t.

Gerry: You’re nuts.

Francis: Nuts? Well, I could go for some pistachios. Let’s get some.

Gerry: Why would you get pistachios, if they might not even exist?

Francis: They might not exist. But I feel hungry.

brody196 wrote:
Hi Kaufmann,

Is Child rape and murder wrong 100% of the time in your worldview? Can you think of any scenarios where it would be neutral or morally acceptable to do such things?

Thanks.
Any thoughts that I have about the wrongness of these actions could be inaccurate, inapplicable, or inadequate. Perhaps I can save you some time by adding that any thoughts I might have about Hitler or about clubbing baby seals could be inaccurate, inapplicable, or inadequate as well.
brody196 wrote:
My point was to prove that there are absolutes in this universe that God has established. Every human being operates under these absolutes.
You did not establish any universal absolutes. You asked histrionic questions that fail to obviate the essential point: humans seem to be neither omniscient nor infallible; accordingly, every human notion is possibly ignorant and/or fallible.

Some people shrink from the uncertainty that yields – for whatever reason. Others can move on to get some pistachios.

But let me ask, brody, where is the greater faith? Abiding in commitment when one feels utterly certain; or abiding in commitment even though one can admit uncertainty?
========================
"The more something is repeated, the more it becomes an unexamined truth...." (Nicholas Thompson)
========================

User avatar
brody196
Posts: 298
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 11:13 pm

Re: SUNDAY NIGHTS—NEW RADIO PROGRAM on internet

Post by brody196 » Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:18 am

kaufmannphillips wrote:
kaufmannphillips wrote:
I do not deny the possibility of logic. I afford the possibility that logic is off-kilter.

brody196 wrote:
But you just used logic to afford that possibility. Bottom line is: You have to assume that there is a universal standard by which to judge truth. If everything has the possibility of being wrong or different, you still have to apply the universal laws of logic and reason to deduce what is wrong or different.
:arrow: Yes, I use reason to afford the possibility that reason is off-kilter. So?
So...By using reason you are assuming a standard by which to judge something as true or possible. After all, in order for you to prove that your reasoning is off kilter, you have to assume some kinda standard for judging that to be off kilter.

:arrow: I do not "have to assume that there is a universal standard by which to judge truth." I may operate from the premise that there is an ultimate reality. But I do not have to assume that this premise itself fits a category of reality or unreality or truth or falsehood. Those categories might prove inapplicable or inadequate in ways that I could scarcely conceptualize, if at all.
The above is self refuting, for if there is an "ultimate reality", and there isn't a universal standard to judge truth, then how did you even so much as deduce there is an ultimate reality? Could not I argue and say that there is indeed a standard, and that statement hold as much value under your system of thinking? Given your statements that you don't really know, how can you be sure that I am not telling you the truth?
:arrow: One problem with your final statement is that affording the “possibility of being wrong or different” does not amount to positing the certainty that anything is wrong or different. Everything might be neither wrong nor different. Then again, the categories of rightness and wrongness and sameness and differentness and being and nonbeing might all prove inapplicable or inadequate.
Your last sentence refuted everything you just typed. If everything might be nothing and vice versa, you can't reason for anything.
Now, one might object to one or more of these comments: that doesn’t make sense! But if my basic outlook posits that there is a limit and fallibility to human reason, then where is the inherent problem if the concept eventually transgresses the bounds of human reason?
Ah..But if you can't decide that there are any absolutes, how can you even have a "basic outlook"? Might your basic outlook be meaningless according to your own standard of judging truth and error.
Another problem with your final statement is that you imagine "laws of logic and reason" to be "universal." Simply because humans make impressive use of their logic and reason, does not mean that these paradigms are universally applicable. Even in the limited range of human experience, we are not constrained to paradigms of reason alone; some of the most significant elements of human experience are irrational and ineffable.
I don't merely imagine laws of logic, they are self evident. You use them too, even though you don't want to admit it. The fact that you are alive today proves such. You know full well that if you were to step out in front of a speeding train that it would plant you graveyard dead, and there isn't one person alive that would want to test that fact. And by stating that laws of logic are not universally applicable, you are assuming that you would be able to judge whether or not the "logic" used elsewhere is rational. You see, you can't escape it.


Neither you nor I may be able to conceptualize a universality where categories of truth or reality are not inexorable. This may tell us something about the parameters of how we conceptualize. But it does not necessarily tell us about universality.
The reason we can't conceptualize such is because of the laws of logic and reason that we verify right here in reality. On a side note, you may want to take up writing sci fi books... ;)


brody196 wrote:
Hi Kaufmann,

Is Child rape and murder wrong 100% of the time in your worldview? Can you think of any scenarios where it would be neutral or morally acceptable to do such things?

Thanks.
Any thoughts that I have about the wrongness of these actions could be inaccurate, inapplicable, or inadequate. Perhaps I can save you some time by adding that any thoughts I might have about Hitler or about clubbing baby seals could be inaccurate, inapplicable, or inadequate as well.
So you can't even say that these things are wrong from your standpoint? Wow...You need to repent Bro. I hope you have not been "given over to a reprobate mind", because if you can't affirm that there are evil things in this world, you got some serious problems.
brody196 wrote:
My point was to prove that there are absolutes in this universe that God has established. Every human being operates under these absolutes.
You did not establish any universal absolutes. You asked histrionic questions that fail to obviate the essential point: humans seem to be neither omniscient nor infallible; accordingly, every human notion is possibly ignorant and/or fallible.
Since I affirm that there is a God who is omniscient and infallible, who has given me the ultimate standard by which to reason, I can affirm whether or not something is right or wrong and true or false.

But let me ask, brody, where is the greater faith? Abiding in commitment when one feels utterly certain; or abiding in commitment even though one can admit uncertainty?
But this is where you have a huge problem, if everything is uncertain and there are no absolutes, then how can you be sure when you have arrived at certainty? Essentially, everybody is right and wrong at the same time in your worldview. Nothing means everything and everything means nothing. But you and I both know that you would not dare step out in front of that oncoming train and expect to make it.

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: SUNDAY NIGHTS—NEW RADIO PROGRAM on internet

Post by Jason » Thu Mar 11, 2010 6:29 pm

Hi, Emmet. I'm not going to jump into your debate with Brody but this is the part of my original post that started this whole thing:
I'm actually finding out quite a bit about other beliefs, especially those not cataloged in the "big five" religions. One thing I've found out so far is that Christianity really does sound like the most rational option given all the rest. I've also discovered that being rational isn't always important to people. Keep on keepin' on.
Your poetic responses to me, and others, might have lead the conversation adrift so forgive me for pulling us back to square one for a moment. From reading your responses, I think you might not actually understand what I wrote initially (not sure about Brody). I mentioned that I was learning about other non-Christian views on Steve's show and how (given the opinions presented to him) I found Christianity to be the most rational of those options. This coincides with your "sliding scale" analogy. You seem to take offense at Christians who make positive statements (about truth, God, rationality, etc) but making positive claims doesn't mean you are certain of your own correctness. It simply means we are persuaded that these things are true. That persuasion comes from many different roads and is, in my case, a combination of subjective life experiences, a wide but limited knowledge of opposing truth claims, basic mental faculties (common sense?), special revelation, and what many call general revelation. I am confident in some of my views on truth (about Christ, for example) but only by way of persuasion.

You may have read my critique of the apologetic tactics of William Craig in his recent debates. While his arguments are quite good, you can't prove the resurrection of Jesus, even if he were to appear in front of you and deliver a personal instant message. Faulty eyes, hallucinations, mental illness, are all reasons one might be uncertain of his actual resurrection even as he stood in front of us in a physical body. There's a big difference between proof and persuasion. When Christians try to prove something, I think they are making a dangerous move. Likewise for anyone else. I think my views of persuasion are akin to the upper digits on your sliding scale.

User avatar
kaufmannphillips
Posts: 585
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:00 pm

Re: SUNDAY NIGHTS—NEW RADIO PROGRAM on internet

Post by kaufmannphillips » Sun Mar 14, 2010 10:27 pm

kaufmannphillips wrote:
I do not deny the possibility of logic. I afford the possibility that logic is off-kilter.

brody196 wrote:
But you just used logic to afford that possibility. Bottom line is: You have to assume that there is a universal standard by which to judge truth. If everything has the possibility of being wrong or different, you still have to apply the universal laws of logic and reason to deduce what is wrong or different.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
:arrow: Yes, I use reason to afford the possibility that reason is off-kilter. So?

brody196 wrote:
So...By using reason you are assuming a standard by which to judge something as true or possible. After all, in order for you to prove that your reasoning is off kilter, you have to assume some kinda standard for judging that to be off kilter.
I am not “proving” anything. I speculate and, accordingly, afford possibility. As for “assum[ing],” I have already dealt with that:
kaufmannphillips wrote:
:arrow: I do not "have to assume that there is a universal standard by which to judge truth." I may operate from the premise that there is an ultimate reality. But I do not have to assume that this premise itself fits a category of reality or unreality or truth or falsehood. Those categories might prove inapplicable or inadequate in ways that I could scarcely conceptualize, if at all.

brody196 wrote:
The above is self refuting, for if there is an "ultimate reality", and there isn't a universal standard to judge truth, then how did you even so much as deduce there is an ultimate reality? Could not I argue and say that there is indeed a standard, and that statement hold as much value under your system of thinking? Given your statements that you don't really know, how can you be sure that I am not telling you the truth?
:arrow: I do not “deduce” an ultimate reality; I operate from an unsubstantiated premise that there is an ultimate reality. But I do not assume that there is an ultimate reality.

:arrow: You can say whatever you like, and categorically it may or may not have value; or then again, those categories of value or non-value might prove inapplicable or inadequate. Then again, the categories of inapplicability or inadequacy might not be applicable or adequate, without being inapplicable or inadequate; or then again, without being or not being; or then again, without without. Etc. :D

:arrow: I cannot be sure that anything is the truth, or that it is not the truth, or that there is truth, or that there is not truth, or that there is is, or that there is not is, or that there is is not is, or that there is not is not is, or that there is is not is not is, etc.

Given my statements that I don’t really know, how can you be sure that I am not telling you the truth?
kaufmannphillips:
:arrow: One problem with your final statement is that affording the “possibility of being wrong or different” does not amount to positing the certainty that anything is wrong or different. Everything might be neither wrong nor different. Then again, the categories of rightness and wrongness and sameness and differentness and being and nonbeing might all prove inapplicable or inadequate.

brody196 wrote:
Your last sentence refuted everything you just typed. If everything might be nothing and vice versa, you can't reason for anything.
Do you mean to suggest that it would fall beyond the limits of reason?
kaufmannphillips wrote:
Now, one might object to one or more of these comments: that doesn’t make sense! But if my basic outlook posits that there is a limit and fallibility to human reason, then where is the inherent problem if the concept eventually transgresses the bounds of human reason?

brody 196 wrote:
Ah..But if you can't decide that there are any absolutes, how can you even have a "basic outlook"? Might your basic outlook be meaningless according to your own standard of judging truth and error.
It might. Or might not. Or might not might or might not. Etc.
kaufmannphillips wrote:
Another problem with your final statement is that you imagine "laws of logic and reason" to be "universal." Simply because humans make impressive use of their logic and reason, does not mean that these paradigms are universally applicable. Even in the limited range of human experience, we are not constrained to paradigms of reason alone; some of the most significant elements of human experience are irrational and ineffable.

brody196 wrote:
I don't merely imagine laws of logic, they are self evident.
Laws of logic may seem “evident” to many human minds. But there are a host of things that seem “evident” to many human minds, yet are not necessarily so.
brody196 wrote:
I don't merely imagine laws of logic, they are self evident. You use them too, even though you don't want to admit it.
Allow me to quote myself: “Yes, I use reason to afford the possibility that reason is off-kilter. So?
brody196 wrote:
I don't merely imagine laws of logic, they are self evident. You use them too, even though you don't want to admit it. The fact that you are alive today proves such.
It is not an indubitable fact that I am alive today.
brody196 wrote:
You know full well that if you were to step out in front of a speeding train that it would plant you graveyard dead, and there isn't one person alive that would want to test that fact.
You mean, like I “know” that dead men don’t rise up alive three days after expiring; and like I “know” five loaves don’t satiate the hunger of five thousand people, and like I “know” men don’t walk upon liquid water?

I don’t “know” those things, and I don’t know that stepping in front of a speeding train will kill me. An angel might pluck me away by a single hair of my head, or the nature of my material form might phase temporarily into a form that permits the train to pass through me. Etc.
brody196 wrote:
And by stating that laws of logic are not universally applicable, you are assuming that you would be able to judge whether or not the "logic" used elsewhere is rational. You see, you can't escape it.
There is no guarantee that there would be any “’logic’ used elsewhere” to be judged. But if there were (and if there were, it might not resemble what we term “logic”), there is no guarantee that my limited human reason would be able to judge it.
kaufmannphillips wrote:
Neither you nor I may be able to conceptualize a universality where categories of truth or reality are not inexorable. This may tell us something about the parameters of how we conceptualize. But it does not necessarily tell us about universality.

brody196 wrote:
The reason we can't conceptualize such is because of the laws of logic and reason that we verify right here in reality. On a side note, you may want to take up writing sci fi books...
And how do we “verify” these “laws”? Or that there is a “right here”? Or that there is a “reality”? All could be illusory.

On a side note, science fiction is – at its best – an estimable genre. When well-executed, the genre presses against conventional boundaries of imagination, in such a way as to shed new light on conventional matters.
brody196 wrote:
Is Child rape and murder wrong 100% of the time in your worldview? Can you think of any scenarios where it would be neutral or morally acceptable to do such things?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Any thoughts that I have about the wrongness of these actions could be inaccurate, inapplicable, or inadequate. Perhaps I can save you some time by adding that any thoughts I might have about Hitler or about clubbing baby seals could be inaccurate, inapplicable, or inadequate as well.

brody196 wrote:
So you can't even say that these things are wrong from your standpoint? Wow...You need to repent Bro. I hope you have not been "given over to a reprobate mind", because if you can't affirm that there are evil things in this world, you got some serious problems.
I can say lots of things from my viewpoint – and I do. But I won’t say that my viewpoint is infallible.
brody196 wrote:
My point was to prove that there are absolutes in this universe that God has established. Every human being operates under these absolutes.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
You did not establish any universal absolutes. You asked histrionic questions that fail to obviate the essential point: humans seem to be neither omniscient nor infallible; accordingly, every human notion is possibly ignorant and/or fallible.

brody196 wrote:
Since I affirm that there is a God who is omniscient and infallible, who has given me the ultimate standard by which to reason, I can affirm whether or not something is right or wrong and true or false.
How does one know that an omniscient and infallible God has given an ultimate standard by which to reason? And how does one know that they cannot be off-kilter in their affirmation?
kaufmannphillips wrote:
But let me ask, brody, where is the greater faith? Abiding in commitment when one feels utterly certain; or abiding in commitment even though one can admit uncertainty?

brody196 wrote:
But this is where you have a huge problem, if everything is uncertain and there are no absolutes, then how can you be sure when you have arrived at certainty? Essentially, everybody is right and wrong at the same time in your worldview. Nothing means everything and everything means nothing. But you and I both know that you would not dare step out in front of that oncoming train and expect to make it.
Uncertainty of health, or employment, or relationships with other people - rampant uncertainty seems to be a “fact of life” – if such things exist, natch ;) . Some persons live in fear and/or denial of uncertainty; others can tolerate it.

But you neglect the nuance of my stance – I do not claim that “everybody is right and wrong at the same time,” or that “[n]othing means everything and everything means nothing.” I merely afford the possibility of such claims.
Last edited by kaufmannphillips on Mon Mar 15, 2010 1:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
========================
"The more something is repeated, the more it becomes an unexamined truth...." (Nicholas Thompson)
========================

User avatar
kaufmannphillips
Posts: 585
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 8:00 pm

Re: SUNDAY NIGHTS—NEW RADIO PROGRAM on internet

Post by kaufmannphillips » Sun Mar 14, 2010 10:31 pm

Hi, Jason –

Thank you for responding.
kaufmannphillips wrote:
And when Jason writes that “Christianity really does sound like the most rational option given all the rest,” one wonders if he is literate enough in these other religious traditions to appreciate the nuanced apologetics that might be offered by their more adept adherents, such as you have offered for Christianity.

Jason wrote:]
There's no need to wonder - I can assure you I am not literate enough in those other religious traditions. So it's a good thing my points don't hinge on it.
In the comment I referenced, you spoke of “actually finding out quite a bit about other beliefs.” But what are you “actually finding out” about these beliefs, if on one hand you have an abundance of dunderheaded callers, and on another hand, an incapacity to appreciate nuanced apologetics that might be made by sapient callers?
Jason wrote:
It's also important to note, as Erik mentioned, that your objections to my statement cancel themselves out, especially when you define what is and is not rational.
Please check out my responses to Erik (and brody) above, and then identify how my objections to your statement cancel themselves out.
Jason wrote:
But it's hard to carry on a conversation with someone else (or listen to one on a talkshow) when there's no objective common ground.

Imagine you call me on the phone:

Emmet: Jason, Emmet here. Listen, I've got an extra ticket to the Canucks game tonight if you want to join me.
Jason: Thanks, but I don't like baseball.
Emmet: No, no... it's hockey. The Vancouver Canucks.
Jason: Are they playing the Red Sox?
Emmet: Jason, it's a hockey team - not baseball. Do you like hockey?
Jason: I like fencing. Hey, is Nolan Ryan pitching?
Emmet: No, because he retired in '93 and never even played hockey.
Jason: So then who's pitching for the Canucks tonight?
Emmet: Jason, you're not making sense. Do you like to watch hockey or not?
Jason: I really love fencing.
Emmet: Right, but I need to know if you like hockey.
Jason: Only if Nolan Ryan is pitching.

OK - there's an issue here. In this scenerio I don't seem to know what hockey is and therefore we can't even begin to have a discussion about it. The best thing for me to do is to simply ask you what hockey is and then have you tell me. After we have this common understanding, we can talk about whether or not I'd like to join you for the game. Steve mentioned, on the air, that labeling our beliefs can be good for some things (like getting a conversation started) but the caller didn't want to be labeled, thus nothing happened. There was no objective grounding. Once two people have that grounding, they can begin using rationality. But not until then.
Kudos for style in your illustration :-) .

I would speak in terms of a common grounding without specifying objectivity. People may discuss easily from a shared set of subjective premises, whether or not the premises correspond to an objective reality.

But part of the problem with Emmet in this conversation is that he is (despite being very handsome) preoccupied with his hockey event. If his primary concern is the hockey event, then this is understandable. But if his primary concern is connecting with Jason, then he should look into tickets for a fencing tournament or a legends-of-baseball charity game with Nolan Ryan pitching.

Now, in a particular conversation, Susan may have an eminent concern for labeling Frank’s beliefs. But Frank may have an eminent concern to avoid labels. Susan may feel that labels will make it easier to get a handle on the situation and communicate more effectively. But Frank may feel that labels will impose unhelpful conceptualizations, thus impeding communication.

Susan: Frank, what do you think about this public health care thing?

Frank: I think that health care is a public issue, and not a private issue. The health of every individual has the potential to affect every other individual. It is an environmental issue, like the cleanness of air and water. So, like other public issues, the government has a responsibility to attend to it.

Susan: So you have a Marxist socialist view of health care.

Frank: I’m not saying that.

Susan: Then you don’t have a Marxist socialist view of health care?

Frank: I’m not saying that, either.

Susan: Well, you either have a Marxist socialist view of health care, or you don’t.

Frank: I don’t think pigeonholing my view in that way would be helpful.

Susan: It wouldn’t be helpful to you trying to cover up that you’re a commie pinko!

Frank: It wouldn’t be helpful to you understanding what my view is really about.

Jason wrote:
Your poetic responses to me, and others, might have lead the conversation adrift so forgive me for pulling us back to square one for a moment. From reading your responses, I think you might not actually understand what I wrote initially (not sure about Brody). I mentioned that I was learning about other non-Christian views on Steve's show and how (given the opinions presented to him) I found Christianity to be the most rational of those options. This coincides with your "sliding scale" analogy. You seem to take offense at Christians who make positive statements (about truth, God, rationality, etc) but making positive claims doesn't mean you are certain of your own correctness. It simply means we are persuaded that these things are true. … There's a big difference between proof and persuasion. When Christians try to prove something, I think they are making a dangerous move. Likewise for anyone else. I think my views of persuasion are akin to the upper digits on your sliding scale.
I initially responded your appraisal of another’s rationality. You may consider another person’s thought to be irrational, but it is possible that said person’s thought is rational in a way that you have not considered.

Further discussion here has engaged the nature of reason – an issue that is not fundamentally about a Christian worldview or a non-Christian worldview.

That being said, some Christians do not think like you or I. They imagine themselves as not merely thinking or believing or being persuaded, but as knowing – a posture that can prove to be an obstacle to greater enlightenment.
========================
"The more something is repeated, the more it becomes an unexamined truth...." (Nicholas Thompson)
========================

Post Reply

Return to “Announcements”