Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 12/10/2002 5:00 AM (GMT -6)

I have a question for you guys. This week I picked up Robert Webber’s “The Younger Evangelicals.” Basically, he does a comparison of evangelicals from the 20th century. The first group are called “Traditionalists” with the leader(s) being Billy Graham and Carl F. Henry. He then goes on to “Pragmatic Evangelicals” whose leaders would include the likes of Bill Hybels and Rick Warren (apparently, even these models are outdated now) to “Younger Evangelicals” who are 20 some-things. According to Webber, the younger evangelicals are products of postmodernism. Yet they seek not to embrace or reject all of postmodernism, but want to bring to bear Christianity in postmodern context in a postmodern way. Though I personally think that Webber is orgasmatic (as I like to say, though the word is really orgasmic

) about the movement, (like postmodern Christians can't have contextual blindspots) I think there is a new wind of the Spirit blowing among those who are called the “young evangelicals.” Don’t worry if you are not in the age group. For you can hold to the same postmodern Christianity and yet be past your twenties. So don't feel like you are "missing the boat" so to speak. Anyway, he has a chapter on apologetics. The postmodern Christian is moving away from evidentialism or foundationalism or propositionalism and moving toward a more narrative apologetic. I would like to know what you guys think about this. What are the some of the strenghts and some of the weaknesses of postmodern Christianity. Have at it.

Brandon
"Totalitarianism, whether in the civic or in the ecclesiastical realm, is unacceptable."--Richard Mouw: Consulting the Faithful

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 12/11/2002 7:07 AM (GMT -6)

Thanks for this post Brandon! I really like Robert Webber's writings, particularly his "Ancient Future Faith" and "Planning Blended Worship." I haven't read "The Younger Evangelicals" yet but it sounds like one I ought to keep an eye out for.

Being a post-modern myself I find that the primary strength of using a narrative apologetic is simply that it is much more effective with fellow post moderns in conveying "truth" or "reality," eg it is more readily accepted. It's weakness is its seeming impotency to convince those of a modernist mindset. There seems to be a much wider generational gap between moderns and post moderns than one might anticipate because of this. Modernist Baby Boomers typically (but not always) don't "get" post-modernist Gen X and Gen Yers for this reason.

My theory is that the post-modern mind is actually much more akin to the pre-modern mind because it is a reaction to modernism. Whereas the modern mind demands logic, rationality, and intellectual satisfaction, the pre-modern or post modern mind is more comfortable with the irrational and mysterious, etc. They are more open to simply having a spiritual experience and holding to that than being convinced of a particular truth intellectually. My focus of ministry with post moderns is one of facilitating experiences and encounters with God through narrative and worship rather than through rational instruction or debate. This is one reason why liturgy is taking off among post-moderns...Greek Orthodoxy is the fastest growing denomination among young adults today because it offers an experience of God rather than a set of intellectual propositions in a sermon about God.

For me personally, debate alone will not change my mind, only experience can. If my experiences do not affirm an intellectual proposition, I will discount the proposition as probable. For both moderns and post moderns "proof" is necessary, but for moderns that proof is intellectual and for post moderns that proof is experiential, hence the need for a narrative apologetic in post-modernism.

I might add in affirmation of what you said that age is not necessarily an indicator of one being a post-modern or modern. I know some Gen Xers/Yers that are truly modernists and a number of Baby Boomers that are post-modernists.

I hope more people involved in ministry will come to understand this stuff!

Thanks again,
~E

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 12/11/2002 1:57 PM (GMT -6)

Miss. Eeeee....

You go guuuurl....(have African Americans stopped saying that? Let me know.

) Thank you, thank you for posting. I was hoping that someone would respond. Aaaand after 'bout 24-25 people reading it (considering I read my post a couple of times) and no responses, I thought that I would have to post again to get the discussion moving. Soooo....

First, I think you are right about the weakness of the impotency of "getting through" to the modernist mind set. So, I wonder if that can be done. If not? What SHOULD we do? Stay on the same course with them? Maintain evidentialism? What should we do with evidentialism itself? Could post-modernism be the beginnings of irrationalism? The demise of rationalism, that is, thinking rationally, logically, coherently, etc. Webber denies this, but I want to know what others think. Another question is concerning "the story" or the "metanarrative" itself. If there is a collaspse of the rational, or evidentialism, then how do I know that "the story" is true? I think you will see what I mean below.

Secondly, you say that the post-modern mindset is more akin to the pre-modern mindset. Well, yes, this is a given. But exactly what sort of mindset are you thinking of? I'm thinking more in terms of era here. But on the whole, I agree with ya. You are right on when you say that your focus of ministry is toward,

"... facilitating experiences and encounters with God through narrative and worship rather than through rational instruction or debate.

And that,

"This is one reason why liturgy is taking off among post-moderns...Greek Orthodoxy is the fastest growing denomination among young adults today because it offers an experience of God rather than a set of intellectual propositions in a sermon about God."

This is one of the things that Webber speaks about. Postmodern Christians are very interested in tradition and returning back to the patristic fathers. Personally, I think this is healthy, but may be a bummer to those who believe in "sola scriptura." Also, I would say that post-moderns are comfortable with the mysterious, but I don't think I would use the word "irrational" but "trans-rational" to describe them as Webber does.

Now, here is what I was going to say before I read your post and responded above.

In the postmodern era, the use of reason and science to prove or disprove a fact has become highly questionable. Though again, Webber says this is not irrationalism. Rather it points to the tenet of postmodernism that says we deal with "interpreted facts." For an example, the biblical narrative speaks of the "fact" of an empty tomb. Both believers and non-believers recognize this fact. That really is not the issue. The biblical narrative however places it within an "interpreted fact," it was done by the power of God (Jesus was raised by the power of the Spirit) and it also placed in another "sub heading" of eschatology.

Now, the the "secularist," as I shall call them, says the world was made by chance, it is materialistic, hence there is no God or God is far removed (deism). This is "their story" or "metanarrative" aaaand they provide their evidence for such a view. The Christian evidentialist tries to prove the Bible is right (innerrant), that God exists, that the resurrection took place, etc and he/she provides their evidence for their view. The problems are:

a) They both reach a stalemate. That is, they both get wrapped up in arguments and really "heady concepts" that seem to go no where. Both have their evidences.
b) Both maintain rationalistic categories. That is, both use reason and science to "prove" their metanarratives.
c) Ultimately both are believed by faith (not a problem). It becomes "faith against faith in opposing stories." Believers and unbelievers are people of faith.

The post-modern Christian views the world through the Bible, which speaks of God's dealings with his creation (specifically Israel) the culmination of God's revelation being the incarnation of Christ and "the ending" to the story, being the "consummation of the ages" and the renewal of heaven and earth. Kinda "fairytalish" eh? Cool!

Hey, if I'm dreaming? DON'T wake me up!

The Christian "metanarrative" maintains that it is not one story along side others, it is not a "relative story," but an "all encompassing story for all people for all times and for all places." This is where it breaks from postmodernism, hence postmodern Christians do not embrace all of postmodernism. For postmodernism says that each "story" is as valid as the next. The Christian (post or otherwise) stands antithetical to this.

Now, some questions emerge as a result, like, how should we interpret the Genesis account? Remember, "the story" involves a beginning and hence, "the beginning" is the narrative of creation. But the question that I find most intriguing (and one of the reasons why I thought there would be more responses) is, "How is truth known?" or "How do we know THIS story is true?

As was said, truth in the modern world was based on reason and scientific method of which both liberals and fundamentalists used to arrive at truth.

Digression: We need to think contextually here, that is, historically. One of the reasons fundamentalists resorted to these categories was not merely the influence of the Enlightenment, as influential as that was, but fundamentalism sought to keep a "high view of Scripture" and maintain a stronghold against modernism. As some of you may be aware of by now, I always try to "give the benefit of the doubt" for people and movements. I don't necessarily look upon them with suspicion and ill feelings (though at times this is called for, that is, it needs to be "rightly placed"). These things (movements) just don't happen in a theological, moral or intellectual vacuum. That is, they don't just occur for no reason. Or merely for reasons of power. Though, later on, they take on lives of their own and loose their moorings, originally, there may be genuine motivations.End Digression

The difference between liberals and fundamentalists was their attitude toward the Bible. Liberals said the Bible was "man's search for truth." Therefore it was subject to human error and fabrication. So they had to tear the Bibe apart or "demythologize" the Bible to come to universal truth that could be affirmed by reason. Usually it was, "God is love and we ought to love others." The brotherhood of man kinda deal.

Fundamentalists saw the Bible as "God's revelation to man" and therefore, it was without error in the message and concerning all references historical or scientific. You can see the problem with this can't you? Though it held historical doctrines of Christianity to be true (a positive), it's weakness was it's attempt to prove the Bible true through reason and science. That is, Christianity was subject to the scrutiny of reason and science. Hence, the way to faith was not merely by faith, but first, proof which generated faith (no one has made this point more clearer to me than Webber here).

Now, two things can be said on the high-lighted part above.

a) For the post-modern, there is no separation between the heart and mind. More will be said on this below.
b) For this reason alone, post-modern Christians can be described as "authentic" or as the Meph Man would say, "F'r real."

Though the rationalistic categories of using science and reason have eroded in bringing us to the truth over time, it seems the new generation of evangelical is "side-stepping" these categories altogether and returning to "narrative" or "tradition" or "story" regarding how we arrive at truth.

For the "younger evangelicals," a story is not "verified" by standing outside of it and seeking to analyze or defend it. Rather we understand them by becoming a part of them or being active participants in them. Now you can possibly see the seeds of why post-moderns are described as authentic and why "the story" is true. Personally, this causes me to rethink the way I do evangelism or missions. Like for those who have objections to Christianity (such as Miss E. who has struggles with the OT God) one should "step into the story."

Digression Last night I was talking with an acquaintance about Christ. She had a problem with church people being hypocrites. After all of the "arguing" I frankly said, "Listen, if you believe that that "faith is in you," when you go home tonight ask God to reveal HIMSELF to you."End of Digression

You know? As a result of reading the chapters on theology and apologetics, I thought of changing my screen name to, "ModesofExistence" in jest toward ModesofThought.

Also, let me say this is one of the reasons why when geej(?) or geew(?) asked 'bout our opinions on "Across the Spectrum," my complaint was that I wished the authors had given us "something of where they personally stood on the issues." Though I may have made too much of it in that post, I believe it is a false dichotomy to separate the head from the heart. In fact it is thoroughly a by-product of the Enlightenment.

Truth as separated from embodied reality and given independent existent. Ugh...

As you can see, AUTHENTICITY PEOPLE, AUTHENTICITY!!

No, we no longer have the brute force of reason which functions as an external entity. Truth comes from the story which is both organic and dynamic and therefore very substantial, and not merely experiential. It is now "the story" that is truth. And it would seem to Webber (and myself) "that post-modernity reflects greater than modernity, the biblical perspective."

Brandon
"Truth is so obscured nowadays and lies so well established that unless we love the truth we shall never recognize it."--Todd Flanders/ Pascal: Talkin' 'bout My Generation

Edited by - BBBCanada on 12/11/2002 7:13:52 PM

Alan Rhoda
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680

Posted 12/11/2002 3:40 PM (GMT -6)

Nice idea for a thread, Brandon.

I would describe my perspective as neither modernist nor postmodernist but as, for lack of a better term, a "contextualist". As I see it, much of the post-modern critique of modernism is valid. Paradigmatic modernists like Descartes and Locke believed in the autonomy of reason apart from feeling and experience, in the so-called "spectator theory of knowledge", in the absolute autonomy of the individual, in the possibility of achieving purely objective, context-invariant knowledge of the world by following the proper "scientific" methodology. Paradigmatic postmodernists like Derrida and Rorty claim that we are thoroughly embedded in a web of interpretations and signs with no way to establish an objective reference point. Postmodernists typically jettison concepts like objectivity, truth as correspondence, metanarratives, and the like. What we seem to be left with is a pretty radical relativism.

With postmodernists I agree that our knowledge, experience, and existence are contextually embedded. But I think postmodernists, who go on to throw out objectivity and truth, throw out the baby with the bathwater. Contemporary postmodernism is basically a historicized and contextualized version of Kantian epistemology, whereby the "world" that we experience is not a mind-independent world, but a synthetic construct in which our conceptual grid is imposed on the "matter" of experience. In short, everything is eisegesis because there's no independent text out there to exegete. This should be seriously problematic for any Christian.

The problem with postmodernism is that it does not go far enough in its critique of modernism. Both sides hold to a position that I call the "neutrality of experience". Modernists typically saw experience as a "veil of ideas", as something purely interior to our mental life--we don't directly encounter reality in experience. The problem, of course, is that there is no essential connection between experience, so defined, and the objective reality that we are trying to know and understand. As Hume's writings clearly illustrate, once we make this move, skepticism is unavoidble. Kant thought he could get around Humean skepticism by construing objectivity as where all of us are constructing the same "world" because the categories of our thinking are UNIVERSAL. For him, experience only provided the "matter" of thought. All of the "form" comes from us. Thus experience cannot "in-form" us about reality, and reality-in-itself is unknowable. Post-Kantian continental philosophy, which gave birth to postmodernism, relativized Kant's categories WITHOUT rejecting the experience-as-matter thesis. The result: we find a multitude a different ways of constructing the "world", and no objective basis for preferring one interpretation over another. That's relativism.

My suggestion is that we need to move beyond both modernism and postmodernism and recover a deeper, more accurate understanding of experience--how it PUTS US IN TOUCH WITH and genuinely INFORMS us about reality. Experience is not neutral. It contrains how we interpret things. That's the only way to avoid both skepticism and relativism.

Alan

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 12/12/2002 4:28 AM (GMT -6)

Thank you Alan. I've been a bit bewildered with the "modernist-post-modernist" dichotomy. You labelled where I stand... a "contextualist." (Is this YOUR innovation? I don't read the literature on this issue much). There must be an appreciation for the strong role social/ psychological/ spiritual/physical/ existential CONTEXT plays in guiding reason -- WITHOUT severing altogether the link between reason and reality.

On the specific issue of this thread, I generally find that the most extreme (hence anti-foundationalist) post-modernists do not reflect the prevailing mindset today. I find that most (not all) people who are influenced by post-modern categories STILL are open to considerations of evidence, logical arguments, etc... its just that they are much less niave than most in the past have been about these considerations. They are keenly aware that there ARE other ways of looking at evidence and construing arguments. They are thus less inclined to wager everything on such considerations. MORE weight is thus placed on the "general fit" of a perspective. Does it (viz. the "story" a position articulates) make sense out of their experience, life in general, etc...

Greg

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

Empiress
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 363

Posted 12/13/2002 7:18 AM (GMT -6)

Brandon said:

quote:
but I don't think I would use the word "irrational" but "trans-rational" to describe them as Webber does.

That's a helpful distinction, thanks. I recall using the word "supra-rational" before in another post; I think that's probably more in line with Webber's concept of the trans-rational and a better description.

Doc said:

quote:
I find that most (not all) people who are influenced by post-modern categories STILL are open to considerations of evidence, logical arguments, etc... its just that they are much less niave than most in the past have been about these considerations. They are keenly aware that there ARE other ways of looking at evidence and construing arguments. They are thus less inclined to wager everything on such considerations. MORE weight is thus placed on the "general fit" of a perspective. Does it (viz. the "story" a position articulates) make sense out of their experience, life in general, etc...

Yes, I agree entirely, thanks for that clarification.

And let's hear it for the contextualists! Alan, I too want to know if this is something you coined? Sounds inspired. :)

I'd be interested to hear others' perspective on this. Brandon has done a really good job of summarizing this stuff!

Peace,
~E

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 12/13/2002 11:31 AM (GMT -6)

Hey thanks you guys for your compliments. You know I had something ready to go yesterday by way of response and then the ‘puter froze. I hate when that happens.

Well anyway, here is basically what I was gonna post.

Alan and Greg, good stuff. Very articulate. Just a couple of points.

Alan, I understood ya until this:

quote:
For him, experience only provided the "matter" of thought. All of the "form" comes from us. Thus experience cannot "in-form" us about reality, and reality-in-itself is unknowable. Post-Kantian continental philosophy, which gave birth to postmodernism, relativized Kant's categories WITHOUT rejecting the experience-as-matter thesis.

Can you clarify this for me? Just a little fuzzy.

Also, I was reading Cameron Lee’s book, “Beyond Family Values: A Call to Virtue” in which he makes the statement that some scholars believe that modernism and post modernism are not that different. And I think Alan, from what you are saying, it sounds as if he may be correct. Also, it would seem to me that if it is the case that:

quote:
we find a multitude a different ways of constructing the "world", and no objective basis for preferring one interpretation over another.

then maybe the post-modern Christian is also at a stalemate as his modernist counter-part. No?

Brandon
"Truth is so obscured nowadays and lies so well established that unless we love the truth we shall never recognize it."--Todd Flanders/ Pascal: Talkin' 'bout My Generation

Edited by - BBBCanada on 12/13/2002 4:33:19 PM

Alan Rhoda
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680

Posted 12/13/2002 2:42 PM (GMT -6)

Hello all,

As for the "contextualist" label, I'm borrowing it from the field of epistemology (my specialty), where it is used to describe the position that epistemic justification is fundamentally contextual. In some contexts, the claim goes, we are perfectly entitled to take certain claims and assumptions for granted. They have foundational epistemic status in that context. Change the context and different beliefs will have foundational status. Furthermore, on this view, there is no such thing as noncontextual epistemic justification. No beliefs are intrinsically foundational. In principle, anything can be called into question, but not all at the same time, because every context requires us to take certain background assumptions for granted.

Greg: I generally find that the most extreme ... post-modernists do not reflect the prevailing mindset today. I find that most (not all) people who are influenced by post-modern categories STILL are open to considerations of evidence, logical arguments, etc... its just that they are much less nieve than most in the past have been about these considerations. They are keenly aware that there ARE other ways of looking at evidence and construing arguments. They are thus less inclined to wager everything on such considerations. MORE weight is thus placed on the "general fit" of a perspective. Does it (viz. the "story" a position articulates) make sense out of their experience, life in general, etc...

Alan: Good point, Greg. I agree, with one important qualification. My experience teaching philosophy in the university has convinced me that there is a sharp dichotomy in modern thinking between how people think about issues related to the natural world and how they think about ethics and religion. Almost all of my students are open to evidence, logical arguments, etc. when it comes to questions about the physical world and science; these are questions of "fact". But once the topic changes to questions of ethics and religion, THE VAST MAJORITY of my students believe that evidence and argument are completely irrelevant and useless. These topics are held to be merely matters of "opinion". If you believe a certain religion or think abortion is wrong, well that's just TRUE FOR YOU. If someone else thinks otherwise, then that's TRUE FOR THEM. Ethical and religious claims are commonly thought to lack objective truth value. They are merely subjective preferences along the lines of "I like chocolate ice cream". Every semester I have to spend at least a week just trying to drive home the point that ethical and religious claims are OBJECTIVE claims to truth about the world and that, therefore, it is appropriate to look for reason and evidence to help us assess such claim.

This dichotomy between the "objective" world of science and the "subjective" claims of science is, I believe, pervasive in our culture. It reflects the dual influence of naturalism and post-modernism on the contemporary mind. Naturalism has been the dominant worldview in our culture for some time now. Its insistence that the natural world is all there is leaves ethical and religious claims without any objective grounding or reference. Religion is just wishful thinking, the opiate of the masses, etc. Post-modernism teaches that everything is a matter of interpretation and that there is no objective reference point to adjudicate between competing interpretations. It is no accident that post-modernism is prevalent in the humanities but not in the sciences. Scientists on the whole tend to be unsympathetic toward post-modernism (recall the Sokal hoak from a few years back)--their collaborative researches repeatedly confirm that there is an objective, mind-independent world that we can know and reliable procedures for testing knowledge claims. When you turn to the humanities, however, the picture is very different. Many people who work in the humanities are very sympathetic to post-modernism, I believe, because they spend most of their time engaging with texts and not directly with the world that the texts refer to. Moreover, the issues discussed in the humanities tend to be much more difficult to sort through and reach a stable consensus on. They touch us closer to home, where psychological factors like emotions, pride, etc. are much more likely to cloud our judgment. It becomes easy for one so immersed to start thinking that such questions CAN'T be answered and that we just have to accept, even embrace, the bewildering plethora of conflicting interpretations.

In my view, this nexus of naturalism and post-modernism makes it difficult for many modern people to take religious and ethical claims seriously.

Brandon: Alan, I understood ya until this: "For him, experience only provided the "matter" of thought. All of the "form" comes from us. Thus experience cannot "in-form" us about reality, and reality-in-itself is unknowable. Post-Kantian continental philosophy, which gave birth to postmodernism, relativized Kant's categories WITHOUT rejecting the experience-as-matter thesis.

Alan: I'll try to clarify. Kant is insistent that we cannot know things-in-selves. We can only know things as the sythetic constructs of our own mental activity. But Kant thought that there was a UNIVERSAL structure behind how we synthesized the "matter" of sense into the objects of our daily acquaintance. Thus, even though we can't have objective knowledge of the world as it is in itself, we can still have a kind of objectivity with respect to the world that is our synthetic contruct. Because we ALL employ the SAME UNIVERSAL structuring principles in synthesizing our world, the worlds that person A and person B synthesize must bears at least a close family resemblance to each other. After Kant, beginning with Hegel and continuing with Marx, Heidegger, et al., Kant's universal structuring priniciples were historicized (they change over time) and relativized (they change from culture to culture). So now there is no particular reason to think that the worlds that person A and person B synthesize necessarily share any degree of family resemblance. Their paradigms are incommensurable, to use Kuhn's language. The faulty assumption behind this whole development is that experience is not genuinely informative, that it doesn't put us in touch with things-in-themselves.

Brandon: I was reading Cameron Lee’s book, “Beyond Family Values: A Call to Virtue” in which he makes the statement that some scholars believe that modernism and post modernism are not that different. And I think Alan, from what you are saying, it sounds as if he may be correct. Also, it would seem to me that if it is the case that: "we find a multitude a different ways of constructing the "world", and no objective basis for preferring one interpretation over another." then maybe the post-modern Christian is also at a stalemate as his modernist counter-part. No?

Alan: I haven't read Lee, but I would agree that the similarities between modernism and post-modernism are in some ways more significant than their differences. Radical post-modernism suffers the fate that all relativisms lead to: It cannot be coherently affirmed without undermining itself. If all viewpoints are equal, then both modernism and post-modernism are equally valid. If post-modernism is objectively better than modernism, then we have at least one trans-perspectival truth. In other words, we have the beginnings of a metanarrative. There is much to learn from post-modern insights about how our thinking is contextually embedded, but the extreme claims of the radical avant garde of the movement (as represented, e.g., by Rorty) are just a lot of self-defeating nonsense, in my humble opinion.

Enjoining the discussion. God bless y'all!

Alan

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 12/15/2002 2:50 PM (GMT -6)

[
Alan: Good point, Greg. I agree, with one important qualification. My experience teaching philosophy in the university has convinced me that there is a sharp dichotomy in modern thinking between how people think about issues related to the natural world and how they think about ethics and religion. Almost all of my students are open to evidence, logical arguments, etc. when it comes to questions about the physical world and science; these are questions of "fact". But once the topic changes to questions of ethics and religion, THE VAST MAJORITY of my students believe that evidence and argument are completely irrelevant and useless.

Doc: Yes, good qualification. This is the prevailing assumption. At the same time, I have found that once I show post-moderners that (say)historical evidence is relevant to the question of who Jesus was, there is room for reason. IN other words, they can be shown that at least the truth claims of Christianity interect with "the objective world." There is a prevailing bifurcation between "the objective world" and "religion and ethics" in our culture. But the bifurcation itself can be shown, quite easily regarding some issues, to be simply a subjective impression. I find that most people are willing to follow this line of thought.

Then again, I admittedly am not surrounded by secular students everyday like you are. What has your experience on this been?

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 12/16/2002 1:38 PM (GMT -6)

Alan,

Gotta be quick. Gotcha. I thought that was what you were talking 'bout. I've always had a problem with Kant on this as a Christian. I've always thought that if God is there and he made reality, then we can know some things about God and about reality. Him and Locke seem to be pretty close to each other on not having objective knowledge concerning reality.

I do have some questions and comments about some things that have been said so far. But I will have to post in the next couple of days (kids have a play tmw night and I want to be there to see it).

I'll just throw out one question though. What do you think about Plantinga's thinking that we don't need evidence to think rationally concerning belief? That is, the atheist says, as the mathematician W. K. Clifford said: "It is wrong always, everywhere and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."

In a formula, it would go something like this:

1. It is irrational to accept theistic belief in the absence of sufficient evidence.
2. There is insufficient evidence to support belief in God.
3. Therefore, belief in God is irrational.

Now the theist will argue from the same premise. He will say:

1. It is irrational to accept theistic belief in the absence of sufficient evidence.
2. There is sufficient evidence to support belief in God.
3. Therefore, belief in God is rational.

Plantiga side-steps this by:

a) agreeing with 3. Much of what he does is intended to defend the rationality of belief in God.
b) agree with 2. He believes there may be reasons that support belief in God. But here's the deal. Even though there may be reasons for believing in God, those reasons are not necessary to make such a belief rational. That is, in opposition to Clifford, there are countless things that we believe in without proof or evidence.

Now there are other things wrong with Clifford's thinking, and that is not necessarily what I want to get into. But, Plantinga's thinking does seem to coincide with post-modern thinking. Not so much that post-modern's don't think rationally, but as far as knowing truth by "jumping into the story," could we not say that along with Plantinga that it is not necessary to have evidence to arrive at truth?

Brandon
"Truth is so obscured nowadays and lies so well established that unless we love the truth we shall never recognize it."--Todd Flanders/ Pascal: Talkin' 'bout My Generation

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/16/2002 3:06 PM (GMT -6)

Very interesting discussion. Thanks, guys/gals!

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/16/2002 3:11 PM (GMT -6)

Ot got me to doing a find-search on my hard drive for "God exists." One thing I came up with was this:

quote:
If God did not exist, two seriously minded men could be made to agree much more easily. Then they would be at liberty to dispose and arrange matters to suit themselves, according to their own choice. But God exists; hence the disposition of things must be according to His choice. In the covenant of love between two persons He is always the Third, and claims that He and His name be not sacrificed to their mutual love. Hence all the conflict, difficulty; and vexation of spirit. Among God’s people love in whatever form is ever subject to the first and greatest commandment: God first and last. This is why it is not lawful to cherish and cultivate an affection which excludes His love. In their mutual affection they may not ignore God; act as tho God did not exist; be indifferent to His name and truth as tho they were of little account and their mutual love the principal thing.

(THE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, by ABRAHAM KUYPER, D.D., LL.D. PROFESSOR OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM.)

Interesting "proof" (I don't think Abe meant it that way.) for the existence of God: that people disagree.

Fred

DrSnug
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 24

Posted 12/16/2002 3:34 PM (GMT -6)

First of all, I love you smart people and wish I could express my thoughts as eloquently. Patience, my dear Watson, patience. My purpose is to bring testimony to this discussion, but first let me secure your trust in my youthfulness by saying that Brittany Spears is hot, but her music sucks. There, I said 'hot' and 'sucks' in the same sentence. I have therefore proven that I'm in my early 20s and can now give you the inside track on what my peers are thinking (or, sometimes, not thinking).
I'm either behind my generation, ahead of it, or on Mars because many of my peers are as brandon says, orgasmatic postmodernists, and I'd put myself in the evidentialist category. Of course, I'm a special case (at least my mother told me so) because I'm sort of a scientist (still have a few years to go for my Ph.D.). Brandon summarizes my thoughts with, "...the way to faith was not merely by faith, but first, proof which generated faith.." I am one to let logic and evidence guide my faith (and, by the way, the more I read this discussion board, the stronger my faith gets, thanks guys, you're really making an impact on a younger believer's walk).
When enthusiastically discussing apologetics with peer Christians I can clearly see my reflection in what are very glassy eyes. It's almost frightening, but the 'substance and evidence' of our faith would be more valuable to my empiricist friends if it were in a praise and worship song. For example, I have recently been browsing a certain website that does a pretty fair job of scientifically discrediting the plausibility of a world-wide flood (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/flood.html). Now for me, I take scientific evidence to heart and don't presume that all scientists are deliberately trying to make me an atheist, but instead are simply making objective observations with the techniques that they have (I think Miss E and me are opposites). There's not always an alterior motive behind every fossil found to convince the world that God doesn't exist. When my friends are presented with this type of evidence, their reply is simply, 'So'. That's because they honestly believe that Jesus is Savior because He is evident in their lives and there must be an explanation for why scientists say the flood couldn't have happened (you have to read that article!!!).
This is both a strength and a weakness. Le' me esplain, no, le' me sum up. They are strong in their opinions in that nothing can divert their enthusiastic beliefs, which concurrently makes them extremely authentic. However, they are weak in their defense to skeptics because they only know how they feel about God, and not why they should feel anything at all (many implications in that statement). Apologetics seems to be a failing art in postmodern Christianity and I think it's do to the inundation of so much misinterpreted scientific evidence.
I'll have to finish this later, or I will never leave the lab so I'll say good-bye for now.

"I solemnly swear to tell the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth; so help me God."

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 12/16/2002 4:53 PM (GMT -6)

Dr. Snug, you are possibly correct about Britney, likely correct about the world-wide flood, and most certainly correct about the post-modern age.

Then again, I'm an old foggie 45 year old. Thanks for bringing in the youthful perspective.

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 12/20/2002 11:45 AM (GMT -6)

Greg or Alan,

Could you guys respond to my last post?

Brandon
"Truth is so obscured nowadays and lies so well established that unless we love the truth we shall never recognize it."--Todd Flanders/ Pascal: Talkin' 'bout My Generation

Alan Rhoda
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680

Posted 12/23/2002 1:22 PM (GMT -6)

Brandon,
Sorry for the long delay in responding to you. Haven't had much a chance this past week with Christmas shopping and all that.

quote:
What do you think about Plantinga's thinking that we don't need evidence to think rationally concerning belief? That is, the atheist says, as the mathematician W. K. Clifford said: "It is wrong always, everywhere and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."

In a formula, [Clifford] argues like this:
1. It is irrational to accept theistic belief in the absence of sufficient evidence.
2. There is insufficient evidence to support belief in God.
3. Therefore, belief in God is irrational.

The theistic evidentialist argues from the same premise:
1. It is irrational to accept theistic belief in the absence of sufficient evidence.
2. There is sufficient evidence to support belief in God.
3. Therefore, belief in God is rational.

A good question. As you clearly point out, the disagreement between Clifford and the theistic evidentialist centers on premise 2: Is there or is there not sufficient evidence to support belief in God? You are also correct in your understanding of Plantinga. He challenges Clifford on premise 1, not premise 2. In other words, Plantinga claims that "it is RATIONAL to accept theistic belief in the absence of sufficient evidence." He argues for this by showing that classical foundationalism (which tries to ground all knowledge on 'properly basic' beliefs that are either self-evident, certain, or incorrigible) provides too narrow a basis for justifying many beliefs that we all accept (e.g., belief in an external world, or belief in other minds). Plantinga concludes that we have to broaden the foundations and asks, Why can't belief in God be properly basic? That is, why can't belief in God be intrinsically justified, independently of any external evidence for or against it? Plantinga defends this possibility by appeal to Calvin's "sensus divinitatis", the idea that we have an innate ability to sense or perceive God, which ability has been obscured due to the noetic effects of sin. This appeal to Calvin is the basis for Plantinga's "reformed epistemology", which adopts a broadly externalist (and reliabilist) position on justification, such that a belief is justified if it is formed by cognitive faculties that are operating in accordance with a design plan successfully aimed at truth. Belief in God, on his view, is the natural outcome of our innate faculty (sensus divinitatis) for perceiving God, when that faculty is operating as God designed it to.

I think Plantinga's epistemology has much to commend it. I object, however, to his treating belief in God as foundational in an absolute sense. As a contextualist, I think that context plays an essential role is determining which beliefs are foundational. In other words, I don't think there are any INTRINSICALLY foundational beliefs--beliefs are only foundational or not IN A CONTEXT. As I see it, ANY belief can be legitimately called into question and further justification sought, but not ALL beliefs at once. So I think Plantinga may be correct in his claim that, in ordinary contexts, belief in God has foundational status. But in other contexts, for example, a debate between a theist and an atheist, it is incumbent on the theist to give positive evidence, "a reason for the hope that we have" (1 Peter 3:15). In terms of the narrative terminology popularized by postmodernism, within each story some things are taken for granted. They are foundational IN THAT STORY. But when a story is challenged, the context has shifted, and we can't rationally continue to assert as foundational the very claims that are under challenge--that's called begging the question.

Hope the makes sense. Have a Merry Christmas!

Alan

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:55 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual