Creationists

Post Reply New Topic

In other words, Newton's clockwork universe.

Quite so. Strict mechanism/determinism has been dead in physics for over 100 years. The philosophers have just not caught up yet.

ruveyn

This assumes, though, that one isn't exposed to any other religion. Someone like me will find it easy to adhere to Christianity because Protestant influences dominate the southern and southeastern US, mainly SBC.

But take various branches of Christianity. Even if I moved away from those influences, I know I wouldn't change my mind because I already find the beliefs I hold to be true. There is no question, in other words, about accepting Jesus as Savior because I've already established that. For me, the question is more about whether what I've been taught about Christ is true--which is mostly right, but there ARE things I was taught that I know to be false but was only taught that because, well, those ideas weren't questioned by those who taught them to me and most Baptists will recognize that my specific objections are reasonable objections and shouldn't have been taught in the first place. We live in a world in which calling teachings into question is more up for discussion in the church than they used to be. It's easier to believe if you understand WHY you believe.

I've come to the conclusion, then, that the church I attend is not an optimal worship environment for me and my family, partly because I don't really feel right at home around people who are very wealthy and do not share the same passion I have for music in worship. I feel like, given time, I can change things. On the other hand, is it worth it? So I don't feel that I'm really limited to just being a Baptist. I'll always be a Baptist. But I'm increasingly seeing myself open to different things; I don't really have that many problems with United Methodists and have only a few minor objections to Presbyterianism. I'm increasingly attracted to AoG and certain non-denominationals. My issues have to do with "tradition-for-tradition's-sake" kinds of religion and a search for genuine worship that balances a concern for quality with a proper sense of purpose.

The point being that the church you're raised in doesn't necessarily indicate the church you end up in.

Now, we're talking about different religions entirely. If what you're saying is true, then you're going to have a hard time justifying the effectiveness of Christian missionaries throughout the world. Open Christianity in China, for instance, is rigorously discouraged with the only church allowed is the "state" Christian church. The problem is a "state" church HAS to comply with state teachings on policy/ideology and can adversely affect the truth of a particular religious ethic. There is a proliferation of illegal "house" churches not unlike the first-century churches in the Roman Empire. So you have to explain why it is illegal, underground churches have been successful in converting the Chinese when Confucianism and Buddhism are merely tolerated by the government.

Christianity has been more successful in more open places such as India, though. While probably not the majority, there continues to be a significant number of converts from other religions. So given the risk of persecution from government authority (as in China and places such as Belarus) and possible alienation from your family from abandoning long-held traditions, why convert? Well, people have the ability to make up their own minds and think for themselves. If you can come to the conclusion that Christianity makes more sense than your own religion, converting is not really much of a stretch. And it also means that where you end up spiritually is not dependent on where you came from. Ravi Zacharias is a prime example of an unlikely Christian (raised in a Christian home, yes, but didn't initially truly accept their faith, not to mention his ancestors were from the Hindu priest caste prior to conversion). That anything like apologetics even exists indicates that a full "inherited" acceptance of any faith is never a guarantee.

Christianity is ~2% in India. People can make choices but by and large the majority everywhere just goes with what is near to hand. Like fast food.

Cyclist -

"So, for example, if one is to discuss with a Christian whether Jesus Christ or Buddha is a more profound spiritual teacher, the Christian will make his decision based on a set of values that is Christian."

I had missed this - been a hard time here.

I know people - certain ones - start hissing at me if I say that "a Christian" is not the fixed star some like to say it is. See the thread on stereotyping.

But I am "a Christian" - just not the "a Christian" of your sentence.

Me, I say - Truth IS. Truth is TRUTH, God is ONE, If you seek Truth, if you follow the Divine - the roads lead to Rome.

[Do not shoot, y'all. That is NOT a Catholic statement, NOR does it deny "I am the Way"].

I posted - talking about sick relative - that piece on dying by Rumi. Islamic - deep Sufism. I read that - there is nothing in it that I can see inconsistent with the highest Christianity. So it doesn't mention Jesus. The guy is speaking Truth.

Jesus versus Gautama, the Anointede versus the Enlightened? Both are teaching Truth. And Truth is One. One of them says things which may legitimately [we already did that discussion, take it as read] be taken to say he is [the Son of] God. One - so far as I know, I have not so closely studied the Buddha - doesn't. That does not affect profundity.

Are there things they say wich disagree? Likely. But then Jesus for sure, probably Gautama , are quoted as saying things where they seem to disagree with themselves.

Which just says Truth is more complex than you or I can hold. The elephant is big and the blind men few.

But - as the guy said, ther is no such thing as "a Frenchman". Christians are not monolithic; not even Christian churches are monolithic.

Sure truth is truth. And a rose is a rose is a rose. You and Gertrude make a lovely pair.

Sure. But...so? People also leave Christianity all the time, too. People may go along with the majority as a general rule. But that doesn't mean that they HAVE to.

Nor does it accurately reflect on what they actually believe. In Central and South America, most people identify as Roman Catholic. The problem with that is Catholicism has been dominant in those regions for hundreds of years and mere tradition gets them in church once or twice a year.

Same deal with Hindu. Of course I'm Hindu! I'm from India, right? So just because someone identifies as one religion or another is not a real indicator of actual belief.

So consider that India does have a HUGE population, 2.3% Christian is actually a big number--I mean, like, a few million Christians. That's not a small number.

Well, there are no small numbers in India. But Islam is 7x as large there. Muslims also do missionary work.

Bribing the poor and hungry with services and food is remarkably effective in spreading cults to other regions. But the culture of the majority is still very hard to beat.

Are you saying that falsified vs not falsified is not an essential distinction, while warranted to believe the Earth being 6000 years old or not is an essential distinction? If that is the case then you are just don't understand fallliblism and stuck in foundationalism that is dead outside apologist circle.

[/quote]
.... Further it assumes that any belief, that cannot be formulated upon the lines of traditional foundationalism (already roundly criticized and rejected, since the measures used by traditional foundationalism are not themselves justifiable under the criteria set by its own measures) cannot be warranted. The assumption is that, failing the measures of traditional foundationalism, anything is justifiable which is huge question begging in favor of traditional foundationalism. Given that reformed epistemology contains rigorous defeaters, its just not a good objection.

Just for clarity; Plantinga's position is not that religious belief has warrant, but rather that under certain circumstances, religious belief can have warrant.

A good popular discussion of the GPO, for those intereseted.
http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress ... objection/
[/quote]

Your argument and the blog you quoted shows you did not pay attention to my source.
1) Plantinga himself admitted Voodooism may have warrant (indeed, mediums and Sherman often claim they have supernatural ways of obtaining knowledge) .
2) It is The objection of DeRose is that _there may exists_ some absurd believes that are warranted (eg. if I am omniscience that all my beliefs are warranted properly basic belief).

I just spent many pages advocating falisifiability in relation to defeaters and logical positivism.



Yes Plantinga has said that, in some circumstances some supernatural beliefs may be properly basic. Properly basic and warranted are not the same thing. Under reformed epistemology 'properly basic' can 'properly basic with regard to warrant' are not the same thing. Plantinga admits that a voodoo practitioner can legitimately claim that their views are properly basic, under the definition Plantinga gives of that term. A properly basic belief, is very easy to attain, however, not all properly basic beliefs are warranted. However, Plantinga relates warrant to agency, does not fit with Voodoo and so it would not be warranted. This is called the 'son of the great pumpkin objection'.

Dr. Craig, discussing Epistemology
http://www.euroleadershipresources.org/ ... .php?ID=61



Yes, this is his position.

A couple of Young Earth Creationist Bible thumpers came to my door today. They agree that some people can get so hung up on the details of a story used to communicate a message that they miss the point of the message. However, when I mentioned evolution, they started parroting the same misinformation I have heard from their ilk time after time. Why can't they come up with some new material that HASN'T been totally discredited or proven wrong many times already?

I was tired from returning from a trip to the doctor's, otherwise I perhaps could have been more patient with them. I suspect they have never heard of human chromosome 2, or the "fishapod" fossil of Tiktaalik, or if they had they have heard distortions of the facts. They seemed patient with me (more than I was with them), and if I had not been already so tired perhaps their minds could have been stretched a little by exposure to some scientific facts. Maybe. It still feels like being in the Twilight Zone to even be having a conversation about something like this in the 21st century. Their view of science is about 4000 years out of date.

I think the issue here is not whether TheBicyclingGuitarist is stereotyping Christians, but about whether a Christian, asked whether Buddah or Jesus was the more profound spiritual teacher, could come to an objective opinion which wasn't in any way biased by religious teachings.

Yes, CrinklyCrustacean got the point I was trying to make. I wasn't just talking about Christians though; the same could be said about one who is raised in a Buddhist culture. In ALL cases, every person on earth has been influenced by one or another of the major religions, and whichever one it happens to be depends mainly on where and when they are born. And the thing is, most people are unaware of the programming of their mind caused by their language and culture. When one is totally immersed in one's culture, one is unaware of its influence on how one perceives reality. Alan Watts compared this to a fish being in water, and presumably a fish doesn't know it is in the water since it is in it all the time.

Or as I quoted earlier, Alan Watts said there is no-one who can truly make an objective judgment regarding which religion or religious teacher is the "best," because for anyone attempting such a judgment it is like the judge and the advocate being the same person, and you wouldn't want that if you were in a court of law!

I do appreciate that (if I recall correctly) Philologos said recently one could recognize the Christ within even if called by another name, or no name. That is a more enlightened attitude (in my opinion), than for example those Young Earth Creationist Bible thumpers who came to my door yesterday, for whom Jesus Christ (by that name!) is the ONLY way for EVERYONE.

I disagree. It depends on which definition of "the best" you are working with. If you were talking about who was influential enough to spread their teachings the fastest, then that could be objectively analysed through statistics, although you would also have to take into account the way in which those teachings matched the culture of the time and check what the impact of that was. If you were looking at the moral codes of each faith, then, again, that could be objectively measured. If you were looking at how convincing the arguments in their favour were, then that could be measured through logic and, where appropriate, scientific tests. The place where it becomes subjective is in deciding who is the best for you as an individual, because unless you go down the road of weighing up the practical pros and cons, it's essentially a question of which is more appealing, and that is going to be different for everybody.

What I mean by "best" religion is what most people who subscribe to various religions mean by that, i.e., that their way is the one true faith and everyone else has it wrong, or that their way is the closest to the "truth" and other churches may be close but not as close as OUR church has it, etc.

in such a case, as I say and still believe to be true, everyone whether they realize it or not makes their decision as to which faith "makes the most sense" largely based on the values inculcated in them by the dominant religion of the culture they were raised in. That point seems to me to be a rather obvious one, even unavoidable, which is what Alan Watts was trying to say if I understood his meaning correctly. Of course I could be wrong!

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 28 Jun 2011, 6:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

@ TheBicyclingGuitarist

I understand your view to be the dominant paradigm at the moment. The idea that culture, language etc remove objectivity seems to me to be at least partly true. When, from this, you draw the conclusion that 'no one' can make an objective statement, then you are perhaps, going beyond what I would consider the reasonableness of the initial position. If by objective you ramp the position up to be something akin to omniscient, which in my discussion with relativists in the past seems to be their most common tactic, then yes, no one can be truly objective, in that sense. However, this does not mean someone cannot be justified in saying that they have the capacity to make a truth claim. So long as a person recognizes the fact that they might be wrong and those things you mentioned could be factors and takes care to avoid them, then I see no issue with someone drawing a reasonable conclusion about the rightness of their beliefs. In this, I reject, the 'dictatorship of relativism', the shibboleth bedrock of post-modern culture.

You seem to have met some Christians who are not really up-to-date (to put it mildly) on the subject of evolution. It is their mistake to think that because they are right about their religion that you are wrong about evolution. It would be an equal error to claim that because you are right about evolution that they are wrong about their religion.