the Word of God is
Philosophy

Willliam Lane Craig on the 'New Atheism'

Part 1 of 5


Part 2 of 5


Part 3 of 5


Part 4 of 5


Part 5 of 5
Comments

Postmodernism?

pomdsm


Sean Mcdowell wrote a great article on “Is Postmodernism a myth?” On what Sean says, I heartily agree. I personally think fideism (not postmodernism) is the primary paradigm (when it come to religion) among the emerging generation. Fideism being that “faith is separate from fact” the “faith-fact” dichotomy is an arbitrary part of a 21st century paradigm. Postmodernism is really an objective assertion that objective truth is unknowable. Postmoderns may say so in religious or ethical matters, but they would never say math or science is subjective or relative. I think postmodernism is a demonic smokescreen for those who wish to not intellectually engage in the classical categories of philosophy like metaphysics, and epistemology. So I would definitely recommend that you read Sean’s post! Also I have been reading “Reasonable Faith” by William Lane Craig. This is the best defense of the Christian paradigm, and Jesus the Lord and Christ, I have personally ever read. Lastly, if you are into apologetics and learning about arguments for the existence of God, the reliability of the Old & New Testaments, the Historicity of Jesus life-death-and Resurrection, prophecy, archaeological discoveries, and the like you must watch the flash curriculum videos at this site. They are very concise and informative, I will recommend them to many people for years to come. I have also embedded the page on my site here.

Comments

Fideism and the Correspondence theory of truth

01christ-765427

Fideism is an epistemological theory that maintains that faith is independent and separate from reason. Fideism maintains that one does not need to have reasons for faith. For faith is, according to fideists, irrational. This has created a great divide in the minds of our popular culture. It can be referred to as the FAITH-FACT dichotomy. This faith-fact dichotomy consequentially leads to sentiments among large numbers of people like “Why do people keep saying that one religion is right, and one wrong? This is so dumb! Can’t people see that all this religious intolerance is ruining society and keeping the world from moving towards human progress, peace, and safety for all.” In the mind of the fideist, religion is not something to be argued about, or debated, just individually preferred. The word fideism comes from fides the latin word for faith and literally means faithism. Since faith is not actually factual then faith should not be argued, defended, or debated for, “No religion should say it is right and others are wrong.” This conclusion follows logically from the fideistic premise. It is this premise that must be critiqued. There are different theories of truth. The correspondence theory of truth is truest to reality, though the other theories have strengths as well. The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world, and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on the one hand, and things or facts on the other. It is a traditional model which goes back at least to some of the classical Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. This class of theories holds that the truth or the falsity of a representation is determined solely by how it relates to a reality; that is, by whether it accurately describes that reality. As Aristotle claims in his Metaphysics: "To say that [either] that which is is not or that which is not is, is a falsehood; and to say that that which is is and that which is not is not, is true"

Are you really reading this blog right now? The Correspondence theory of truth would say, “you are really reading this blog this very moment” and that propositional statement would be defined as true since the statement corresponds to reality. If while you are reading this blog, someone was to say, “You are not reading the blog right now,” that propositional statement would be defined as false since it does not correspond to the fact that you really are reading the blog. Therefore, since language has meaning, humans can make propositional statements that correspond to reality as it exists. Therefore, faith that is not based on reality is faith based on fiction. Faith based on fiction is false and therefore should be abandoned. If it is true that there is no facts that establish our faith, than our faith is fact-less and should be abandoned since it does not correspond to reality. If our faith is based on facts that correspond to reality than our faith should be embraced, not because it feels good, but because it is true to reality and to not embrace reality is to embrace fiction. Fiction should be abandoned and reality should be believed.

Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, and Joseph smith all made propositional statements. The question that must be asked is, Did any of those men make true statements about reality? This must be investigated, critically.

If Jesus statements about His incarnation, life, death, and resurrection were never stated or are not accurate to reality there is no reason to follow Jesus for He would be a liar, or lunatic and the christian faith would be based on fiction. If Jesus statements about Himself were accurate and correspond to reality as it exists, we have every reason to fall at His feet and worship Him alone, because He has shown us what reality is really like.

Comments

Labeling people with a "dry erase"




"Labeling" is a culturally loaded term. It is almost as if no one knows what they mean when they use the term, but everyone knows what "it" means. I think it is kind of funny that people label people who are "labelers?" So instead of being irrational I like to think about the way people use terms with each other. For example, if someone says they hate people who label people...I will ask them what they mean. After we define in more words what we are talking about we almost always come to consensus. Here are the pro's of labeling people. I will ask them, "Do you think it is wrong that we label sex offenders for the benefit of society?" Society does not label sex offenders because it hates them per se but because society seeks to protect the innocent from a re-ocurring evil. The label helps. It keeps them from getting jobs working alone with young children. That surely is a good thing for the children and the offender. Another thing I like to think through is when we label tupperware according to its contents it is useful for organization. However, if one day I open the salt tupperware and discover it is sugar I will re-label that tupperware. I think labeling people can be positive or negative. I think labeling must be done with a "dry-erase" marker rather than a "permanent" marker. Labeling is something Paul engaged in when He marked out heretics or good leaders in the church (2 Tim 1:15-16). Paul labeled heretics and good leaders with a "dry-erase" when he left room for heretics to repent (2 Tim 2:25-26) and good leaders to apostasize (1 Tim 4:16).
Comments