- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
The basic tenets of Christian philosophy can be demonstrated to be rational, for they are held by average, rational men and women. But surely, Christianity must still run into an epistemological problem—how does the Christian "know" without clashing with science and experience? How can the knowledge we gain through faith in Biblical revelation compare to knowledge gained by a scientific investigation of the universe?
The answer is not as difficult as one might imagine. When all is said and done, all knowing requires faith. Faith precedes reason or, as W. J. Neidhardt puts it, "Faith correctly viewed is that illumination by which true rationality begins."
While Marxists and Humanists like to portray science as primary knowledge and faith in Biblical revelation as some blind second-class epistemology or even superstition, the fact remains that all methods of knowing ultimately rely on certain assumptions. Edward T. Ramsdell writes, "The natural man is no less certainly a man of faith than the spiritual, but his faith is in the ultimacy of something other than the Word of God. The spiritual man in no less certainly a man of reason than the natural , but his reason, like that of every man, functions within the perspective of his faith.”
The basic problem of philosophy is not the old problem of faith versus reason. “The crucial problem,” says Warren C. Young, “is that some thinkers place their trust in a set of assumptions in their search for truth, while other thinkers place their trust in a quite different set of assumptions". That is Humanists and Marxists place their trust in certain findings of science and experience, neither of which can be rationally demonstrated to be the source of all truth. Christians also put their faith in science, history and personal experience, but they know such avenues for discovering are not infallible. Christians know that men of science make mistakes and that scientific journals can practise descrimination against views considered dangerous. Christians know that history can be perverted, distorted or twisted, and that some personal experiences are not a good source of fact or knowledge. On the other hand, Christians believe that Biblical revelation is true and that God would not mislead His children.
Christian philosophy does not throw out reason or tests for truth. Christianity says that the New Testament is true because its truths can be tested. Christians arn't asking the non-believer to believe a revelation of old wives' fables, but instead to consider some hitorical evidences that reason itself can employ as an attorney building a case uses evidences "in the law to determine questions of fact." Christians epistemology is based on special revelation, which is in turn based on history, the law of evidence, and the science of archeology.
Philosophical naturalists also make assumptions that they necessarily accept on faith. All naturalists agree there is no supernatural. "This point," says Young, "is emphasised by the naturalists themselves without seeing that that is an emotional rather than a logical conclusion.
Continued...
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Faith is critical in every philosophy. The individual developing a philosophy must be extremely careful to base his case on the most truthful assumptions - otherwise, should one of the assumptions be demonstrated to be untrue (as it appears the assumptions of the theory of evolution will be), the whole philosophy will crumble. If evolution crumbles (which is quite possible - Dr Karl Popper doen't even believe that evolution fits the definition of "scientific theory"😉, Marxism and Humanism are intellectually dead.
Up to this point we have discovered two things regarding Christian philosophy: Many hold it to be the most rational of all world views, and it requires virtually no more faith then any other philosophy. Indeed, one could argue that it takes a great deal more faith to believe in the spontaneous generation doctrine of Marxism and Humanism or the randomness of all nature (i.e., that the universe happened by accident) than it does to accept the Christian doctrine of Creator/Creation.
Extract from: THE BATTLE FOR TRUTH, David A Noebel. p77, 78.
Originally posted by dj2beckerI'm not sure I want a Christian philosophy that can be demonstrated to be "rational." Is that all Jesus came for?
The basic tenets of Christian philosophy can be demonstrated to be rational, for they are held by average, rational men and women. But surely, Christianity must still run into an epistemological problem—how does the Christian "know" without clashing with science and experience? How can the knowledge we gain through faith in Biblical revelation compare to ...[text shortened]... elves without seeing that that is an emotional rather than a logical conclusion.
Continued...
Originally posted by dj2beckerWhere did you copy and paste this from? How many times do you have to be told to cite your source? As it is six paragraphs long and contains no spelling errors, I know you didn't write it.
The basic tenets of Christian philosophy can be demonstrated to be rational, for they are held by average, rational men and women. But surely, Christianity must still run into an epistemological problem—how does the Christian "know" without clashing with science and experience? How can the knowledge we gain through faith in Biblical revelation compare to ...[text shortened]... elves without seeing that that is an emotional rather than a logical conclusion.
Continued...
Originally posted by rwingettIn addition to the neologism, ultimacy, I count four spelling errors: "practise descrimination," "arn't," and "emphasised". Two of these may be legitimate spellings in Britain, although not in America, leaving but two. Because all of these can be attributed to typing skill, rather than the failure of lexical knowledge, it seems probable that dj copied it from a book. He should be commended for expending more than the usual degree of effort on his plagiarisms.
Where did you copy and paste this from? How many times do you have to be told to cite your source? As it is six paragraphs long and contains no spelling errors, I know you didn't write it.
Originally posted by WulebgrPhilosophical naturalists also make assumptions that they necessarily accept on faith. All naturalists agree there is no supernatural. "This point," says Young, "is emphasized by the naturalists themselves without seeing that that is an emotional rather than a logical conclusion.”
In addition to the neologism, ultimacy, I count four spelling errors: "practise descrimination," "arn't," and "emphasised". Two of these may be legitimate spellings in Britain, although not in America, leaving but two. Because all of ...[text shortened]... expending more than the usual degree of effort on his plagiarisms.
1. Somebody seems to be confusing assumptions and conclusions here—and it's not the accused naturalists...
2. I have noticed on here that people seem to disagree about what “faith” means—or at least about the particular usage in question. So—
faith (fath), n. 1. confidence or trust in a person or
thing: faith in another's ability. 2. belief that is not
based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would
be substantiated by fact. 3. belief in God or in the doc-
trines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pil-
grims. 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, stand-
ards of merit, etc.: to be of (he same faith with someone
concerning honesty. 5. a system of religious belief: the
Christian faith; the Jewish faith. 6. the obligation of
loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.:
failure to appear would be breaking faith. 7. the ob-
servance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise,
oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his
faith during Our recent troubles. 8. Christian Theol.
the trust in God and in His promises as made through
Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified
or saved. 9. in faith, in truth; indeed: /n faith, he is a
fine lad. [1200-50; ME feith < AF fed, OF feid, feit <
L fidem, ace. of fides trust, akin to fidere to trust. See
CONFIDE]
—Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary.
And, in fairness, St. Paul: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (KJV Hebrews 11:1)
3. Now, it seems to me that if the naturalist puts confidence in “things seen”—i.e. the natural order—that is vastly different from a faith that puts confidence in “things not seen”—i.e. the supernatural. To paraphrase Laplace: The naturalist simply has no need of the assumption.
EDIT: Sorry, Wulebgr: this was in reply to dj2.
Originally posted by dj2beckeras pointed out by vistesd, there seems to be many competing viewpoints concerning what conditions constitute sufficient cause for characterizing a given belief system as 'faith' based. personally, i think your use of the term 'faith' is sloppy at best, but that doesn't matter for the sake of this discussion. the important point is that there exists a clear fundamental difference between the 'faith' that you use to endorse your belief in god and the 'faith' (if you feel inclined to call it that) that i use to endorse my lack of belief in god. the difference lies solely in the fact that you are willing to place your belief in supernatural assertions that you cannot sufficiently support or defend.
The basic tenets of Christian philosophy can be demonstrated to be rational, for they are held by average, rational men and women. But surely, Christianity must still run into an epistemological problem—how does the Christian "know" without clashing with science and experience? How can the knowledge we gain through faith in Biblical revelation compare to ...[text shortened]... elves without seeing that that is an emotional rather than a logical conclusion.
Continued...
the unsupported nature of your belief system is evidenced by your inability and unwillingness to provide any credible evidence for your claims despite many requests for you to do so -- you have demonstrated this behavior time and time again to such an extent that it is now the defining feature of those posts that originate from the username 'dj2becker' (other than the distinct cut and paste fetish thing).
your posts IMO have now become self-defeating. many of your recent posts (including this one) seem to be implying that since we may not really be sure of anything, that must mean that your belief system is rationally justified since we can't know beyond doubt that your belief system is wrong (the old 'my proof is that you can't prove me wrong' shenanigan). this epitomizes your 'faith' and your own misconception as to what constitutes rational justification. this tells me that you construct your belief systems using a 'top-down' rather than a 'bottom-up' approach. try building a house by first laying a rooftop, rather than a solid, workable foundation; see for yourself what kind of 'structural integrity' results from that approach.
Originally posted by vistesd"faith" is a term that is used is so many fallacies of 4 terms.
[b]Philosophical naturalists also make assumptions that they necessarily accept on faith. All naturalists agree there is no supernatural. "This point," says Young, "is emphasized by the naturalists themselves without seeing that that is an emotional rather than a logical conclusion.”
1. Somebody seems to be confusing assumptions and conclusions her ...[text shortened]... ist simply has no need of the assumption.
EDIT: Sorry, Wulebgr: this was in reply to dj2.
[/b]
The few times that Christ uses it has to do with the ability to do miracles and once in a chastisement of the pharisees..
Paul used it a lot more and usually in the sense of a belief in God.
Originally posted by kirksey957No, that is not all Jesus came for, by any means; but surely His coming, and everything He said and did, as well as everything behind Him would (and should) be rational.
I'm not sure I want a Christian philosophy that can be demonstrated to be "rational." Is that all Jesus came for?
Question: Would it be in any way better if it were irrational?