Yes of course, total human depravity undermines human reason. I think we are talking across purposes a little as I made virtually the same point earlier. (And this is what David was responding to).
My language was a little loose in answering David.. I certainly don’t think Paul was trying to offer a ‘proof’ from nature. (I implied this from my previous comments)
However natural law theories originate with Greek philosophy not Aquinas.. so possibly when Paul is speaking to a Greek audience he may well have been interacting with some of these ideas.
I am happy to defer to the theologians regards the definition of special revelation.
The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals scans and posts AP.
Here is the link to the June 2005 AP, read Hastie’s editorial as well as the interview with Budziszewski. His “What we can’t not know” comes with (my) very strong recommendation.
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)
No, within a ‘scientific’ worldview.
Scientific observation, extrapolation and experimentation have provided us with a comprehensive description of the nature of the Universe.
1. Philosophically, It assumes God is a material entity that is measurable.
Rather, I would suggest that If God exists then he has had an influence on the Universe, which if not measurable, should at the very least, be identifiable.
3. Historically and sociologically, it assumes that atheism is the default position. I don’t accept this.
Neither do I.
Humans begin from a position of ignorance… and fear. Understanding begins by projecting our own characteristics onto the world around us - attributing distinctly human qualities in our explanation of the mechanics of the Universe.
Acceptence and certainty, as well as discomfort with change and uncertainty, are also inherent aspects of our nature.
The comprehensive scientific world-view, is a very recent phenomenon.
It does not address our fear of mortality.
David Palmer opined:
Interesting to read the atheists - they are all modernists to a man, not a post-modernist amongst them!
David,
Such labels may be of some value in a discussion of Architecture; they are meaningless in terms of an individual’s philosophical position.
A rational, relatively objective examination of the current explanations for the workings of the Universe, demonstrates the Scientific view to be the only one which retains any validity.
Interesting to read the atheists - they are all modernists to a man, not a post-modernist amongst them!
David,
Such labels may be of some value in a discussion of Architecture; they are meaningless in terms of an individual’s philosophical position.
A rational, relatively objective examination of the current explanations for the workings of the Universe, demonstrates the Scientific view to be the only one which retains any validity.
It does not exclude God by defintion.
God is simply
unnecessary.
Rob
Rob,
“Assertion without demonstration” sums up your second paragraph, which is precisely what I scribbled across much of my copies of the books by Hitchen, Onfray, Dennett and Harris. From what I hear Dawkins is even worse.
Frankly, if I wrote as you have done, I hope I would have the grace to blush.
Because of the work in Metallurgy, Organic Chemistry, Optics, Atomic Theory, Physics, etc. ?
Scientific Advancement demonstrates its achievements, to each of us, every day.
Sorry, I thought that was self-evident.
Conversely, as Jeremy said:
2.Theologically, the Bible says it is not possible for me to prove God to you using human reason.
One is dependent on ‘Blind’ Faith - and so might just as legitimately choose Islam. or Mormonism, or Heaven’s Gate.
On another board a Christian acquaintance noted:
“Now I do think that it is a problem that once one has conceded or admitted the existence of God one is apt to find oneself with an epistemological blank cheque, to that extent the atheists have a point.” Callan
So, with a statment such as -
‘Assertion without demonstration’
To which of them do you think a relatively open-minded person might consider it most applicable
One is dependent on ‘Blind’ Faith - and so might just as legitimately choose Islam. or Mormonism, or Heaven’s Gate.
Not being able to conclusively prove God is quite another thing from Blind Faith. Blind Faith, as the name suggests, is blind. It’s accepting what someone else says on no basis other than you want to. Now of course I won’t say I can conclusively prove God to you, but that doesn’t mean I, and others, are blind.
Rob
Your elegance and grace in responding to arguement is delightful and engaging. I usually can easily agree with much of what you say, but where “blind faith” is concerned I think a response is called for.
I believe both in God and “on God”. That is, evidence and experience teach me that God exists. Apparently it teaches you something different.
If I have “blind faith” (and in this instance I wish I did) it would be faith “on God”. That is; having come to the conclusion that God exists, I must learn to trust on Him. (There is a logical step or two in between these steps, but this is the Readers Digest version.
Rob,
It seems to me that you place enormous weight in the scientific explanation of the universe as the way of establishing the irrelevance of God.
Rob Callander - 24 February 2008 11:56 AM
Scientific observation, extrapolation and experimentation have provided us with a comprehensive description of the nature of the Universe.
...Rather, I would suggest that If God exists then he has had an influence on the Universe, which if not measurable, should at the very least, be identifiable.
… A rational, relatively objective examination of the current explanations for the workings of the Universe, demonstrates the Scientific view to be the only one which retains any validity.
...
Rob
A genuine question: what do you actually know about science and the scientific method? What about the history and philosophy of science?
You see, your argument above would suggest that all scientists, simply by a study of the scientific explanation of the universe, would come to an atheistic position.
Further, what kind of data would you allow to establish God’s influence on the universe, since you rule out a priori that God can have an influence (since science explains things)?
To which of them do you think a relatively open-minded person might consider it most applicable
Rob
Rob,
I find no evidence whatsoever in any of the books by atheists I have cited above that any of them have an “open mind”. Their minds are set as steel traps against anything other than their philosophical naturalism.
I find them incredibly naive (and you it would appear?) to think that science has successfully dispensed with God. It is not their science but their philosophical naturalism that enables them to do that. Their naturalism (materialism) uses science as a cloak to give the impression of factualness from which in part their authority is derived.
I would be interested in your response to Jason’s questions above and challenge you to obtain and read a copy of of John Lennox’s “God’s Undertaker - has science buried God?”. Lennox is a reader in Mathematics at Oxford University and has debated Dawkins.
It seems we Christians are prepared to read the atheists books, so how about a token atheist returning the compliment?
You are getting comments from all over the place, so I understand you may not be able to keep the threads together ;)
You answered me:
No, within a ‘scientific’ worldview.
Scientific observation, extrapolation and experimentation have provided us with a comprehensive description of the nature of the Universe.
Perhaps its my ‘useless’ arts grad education, but this answer seems very strange to me. I assume you don’t think all human knowledge comes from scientific method??
Are you a fan of Dawkins’ Flying Spaghetti Monster argument? If not, what is your definition of God?
Rather, I would suggest that If God exists then he has had an influence on the Universe, which if not measurable, should at the very least, be identifiable.
Sure, but you can’t ‘test’ the God thesis in way your are inferring. As a result people have a tendency to read the ‘evidence’ in the light of their assumptions…
Well, since the only letters I can officially place after my name are B.A., I might dispute your characterization.
As for knowledge? Who knows…
But science is simply a mechanism, a means whereby we can evaluate competing explanations of observable phenomena.
I think the FSM is unhelpful, rather like Russell’s teapot - Christians cannot be expected to view it as anything other than a gross insult; it is juvenile at best.
As a result people have a tendency to read the ‘evidence’ in the light of their assumptions…
As a preteen I was interested in the notion of telepathy; I was also sceptical.
I try not to make assumptions (although I am not sufficiently naive to believe that I am not subject to them)
David,
I have met many Christians who ‘know’ the truth.
I have Muslim friends who have a different truth
And Hare Krishna’s who have elucidated yet another truth
Not to mention, Mormons, Scientologists…
If I cannot utilise science, which is the only mechanism I know of which may provide something approaching an objective assessment - How am I to avoid self-delusion?
I may well be naive - but I would appreciate some enlightenment on just how I am wrong.
And please do not refer to me as ‘token’. I have explained (yet again) on this thread, the reason for it’s application.
If I cannot utilise science, which is the only mechanism I know of which may provide something approaching an objective assessment - How am I to avoid self-delusion?
Science is good, but only within its means. Logical reasoning would have a wider application. However it cannot answer all our questions either. An honest question: do you feel you need to have answers for every question? If not, when do you let the answers you have guide what you believe for the answers you’re missing?
The opinions expressed in this forum belong to the individual posting the message and may not represent the view of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. Click here to read the Posting Policy.
Everyone is welcome on our forums, but please keep comments on-topic and civil. Any flaming or general nastiness will be deleted. No unsolicited advertising is allowed. All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the forums should be directed to Robert Moller. Click here to read our complete Posting Policy.
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi
