RF Q&A 317

Open discussion for all registered members.

RF Q&A 317

Postby NearlySane » Tue May 14, 2013 12:23 pm

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/confused ... concordism

I’ve included the link to this Q&A as I have only quoted things which I find relevant to respond to.

Right; I’m not an evidentialist in the sense that I do not think that faith needs to be based upon argument and evidence in order to be rational.

Faith is the antithesis of rational. As Matt Dillahunty succinctly puts, “Faith is the excuse people give when they don’t have evidence”, so it’s not only that faith doesn’t need to be based on evidence, but rather that faith can’t be based on evidence. So to add to that, any argument that is made for a faith based position will have no evidence to back it up and therefore can be dismissed.

Rather I think that belief in what Alvin Plantinga calls the great truths of the Gospel can be properly basic and warranted for us due to the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit.

It would be refreshing if he just used his personal experience as his reason for believing what he does and left it at that, but no, he’d rather use it as a base for confirmation bias for all his evidence free arguments. Plus, not only is his reason for ultimately believing what he does indistinguishable from irrationality, he disguises it as objective in order to have more pennies to count at the end of each month.

I am an evidentialist in another, more classical sense of the term: I think that there are Christian evidences which warrant Christian belief for the person who is apprised of them.

Pure bollocks. You can’t have evidence for God. A God that creates nature exists outside of it and has no constraints, which breaks cause and effect. God can do anything, so anything is potentially evidence for God, making it indistinguishable from God being the cause of nothing.

I’m not sure what you mean by the expression “we should not use the biblical text as a reference point back into science.” I do think that we should try to understand what the biblical text teaches and then integrate that teaching with what we learn from modern science into a coherent worldview that takes both theology and science seriously.

While I have no beef with what he does with his spare time, I’ve seen no reason as to why we should take theology seriously. He doesn’t provide one here, but of course, we’re to take his word for it.

My and Paul Copan’s claim in Creation out of Nothing (Baker: 2004) is that, wholly apart from modern science, the Bible teaches that God created the world out of nothing (= not out of anything). That is the burden of Paul’s lengthy exegesis of the biblical text over several chapters. I then argue that this biblical teaching coheres well with what modern science teaches. That exemplifies the integrative approach to systematic theology that I advocate.

He’s just a liar. The biblical teachings are incoherent with what modern science teaches. Nowhere will you find in a scientific paper on the beginnings of the universe with reference to it coming about ex-nihilo, certainly not in his favorite reference - the BGV theorem.

How should we apply this approach to the virgin birth? We begin by ignoring what biology has to say about conception and ask what these ancient narratives teach about Jesus’ birth. (To do otherwise would be to embrace the hermeneutic of Concordism.) When we examine these narratives and their literary genre, we find that the virgin birth is not intended to be merely a symbol of Jesus’ purity but is presented as factual.

Okay, so the virgin birth is presented as factual. Is that it then? We just accept that it is? No reference to any evidence of it happening?

Anyway, I’ll hypothetically accept it as factual for now for arguments sake….

Turning, then, to modern science, we find, obviously, that like the resurrection, such an event is naturally impossible.

This currently does appear to be the case (if you ignore things like artificial insemination). However, somebody needs to notify Craig that science provides provisional explanations for natural phenomena based on evidence. So while it currently flies in the face of what we know about the natural world, claiming it impossible is naïve.

Therefore, if such an event took place, it had to be a miracle, that is, an event with a supernatural cause. That will be a thorn in the eye to any naturalist, but for the theist it is hardly problematic.

Fail, fail, fail. Not even wrong. If such an event took place, then it wouldn’t be naturally impossible. This is an event that occurred in the natural world, it is a natural phenomenon, so for it to happen there has to be a natural cause. If Craig is going to shoehorn in a supernatural cause, then how is that supernatural cause going to alter nature without manipulating nature? We, as internal observers, will only perceive the alteration in nature, and not the manipulation of nature. This manipulation is unfalsifiable and indistinguishable from there being no manipulation.

So there is no “thorn in the eye for any naturalist”, just a huge plank sticking out of his neck.

Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 8:17 am

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest