Is there anything other to be than a Biblical literalist? After all, meaning is defined purely on the syntactic level.

Dannii Willis - 20 February 2008 01:58 AM

Is there anything other to be than a Biblical literalist? After all, meaning is defined purely on the syntactic level.

Pardon?

(Sarcasm)

Dannii Willis - 20 February 2008 11:58 AM

(Sarcasm)

Umm… I actually didn’t understand what you meant. Honest.

I was sarcastically saying that the only meaning found in a text was at the syntactic level, ie pure word order, dictionary word definitions etc, rather than there being the possibility of figurative language or idioms.

Rod, you were a bit confused by what i said earlier.
sorry I have taken a while to reply. I have been very busy.

I was just saying that your proposition that ‘that the onus is on Christians to prove that God exists’ only makes sense within an athiestic worldview (which i obviously don’t accept)

1. Philosophically, It assumes God is a material entity that is measurable. 
2.Theologically, the Bible says it is not possible for me to prove God to you using human reason. God reveals himself to you. He is the agent of grace. All I can do is point you to Jesus, as the revelation of God within human history.
3. Historically and sociologically, it assumes that atheism is the default position. I don’t accept this.

Time has an little artile that makes this point.

University of Oxford researchers will spend nearly $4 million to study why mankind embraces God. The grant to the Ian Ramsey Center for Science and Religion will bring anthropologists, theologians, philosophers and other academics together for three years to study whether belief in a divine being is a basic part of mankind’s makeup.

“There are a lot of issues. What is it that is innate in human nature to believe in God, whether it is gods or something superhuman or supernatural?” said Roger Trigg, acting director of the center.

He said anthropological and philosophical research suggests that faith in God is a universal human impulse found in most cultures around the world, even though it has been waning in Britain and western Europe.

“One implication that comes from this is that religion is the default position, and atheism is perhaps more in need of explanation,” he said

(Charles Taylor’s A secular age also does a great job at explaining how the atheistic worldview is built on 3 historical evolutions in philosophy. None of which are beyond challenge)

In Antony Flew’s new book There is a God contains an account of how as a philosopher he was one of the main exponents of the argument that the onus is on Christians to prove there is a God, ie that athiesm should be the default setting for humanity. The book recounts that he has found that arguement less and less sustainable. He has come out as a theist.

Jeremy Halcrow - 21 February 2008 02:18 PM

2.Theologically, the Bible says it is not possible for me to prove God to you using human reason. God reveals himself to you. He is the agent of grace. All I can do is point you to Jesus, as the revelation of God within human history.

Good post Jeremy.

Thanks for the tip on Charles Taylor, “A Secular Age”.

Actually you can do more than point to Jesus, you can argue cogently on the basis of natural law. Roms 1, 2 esp 2:15, cf Acts 17:16 for a practical demonstration. Have I mentioned J Budziszewski before?

Yes David, you are right that Paul argues from natural law. I do think natural law arguments can lend credibility to the Christian account… not sure about ‘proof’ in the sense that Rob means. I suspect he is thinking in certain categories of positivist logic and scientific methodology.
This is speculative but I wonder if natural law arguments are a little problematic in our culture’s ‘modernist’ framework because of the dominant meta-narrative of scientific positivism.

Thank you again Jeremy. I will need to think more about what you are saying. Natural law is one arrow in a quiver full.

Interesting to read the atheists - they are all modernists to a man, not a post-modernist amongst them!

That said, William Lane Craig is the best Christian apologist I’ve come across arguing in these categories.

Worth checking out his site. I have found him helpful.

David Ashton - 03 February 2008 01:25 AM

P.S. Why does this application’s spell checker use American English?

Use Firefox (for free) it has an Australian spell checker.

Jeremy Halcrow - 21 February 2008 05:09 PM

Yes David, you are right that Paul argues from natural law.

I don’t believe this is so—certainly not in Rom 2 or Acts 17, and Rom 1:18-32 rules out the possibility of the argument having either validity or effectiveness due to the nature of sinful humanity.

The Roman Catholics, following Aquinas, would be happy with what you suggest, however. But I’m not sure their happiness would make you happy! (or should, for that matter)

Gordon Cheng - 22 February 2008 01:50 PM

Jeremy Halcrow - 21 February 2008 05:09 PM

Yes David, you are right that Paul argues from natural law.

I don’t believe this is so—certainly not in Rom 2 or Acts 17, and Rom 1:18-32 rules out the possibility of the argument having either validity or effectiveness due to the nature of sinful humanity.

Gordon,

You are confusing the differing roles of natural law and special revelation.

May I suggest you dig out Peter Hastie’s editorial and interview with J Budziszewski in the June 2005 edition of Australian Presbyterian and then we can argue the toss over natural law if that is still your wish.

Thanks David, I will try to look up the article next time I’m in at Moore Coll.