RE: Hello from Nathan
February 25, 2011 at 7:09 pm
(This post was last modified: February 25, 2011 at 7:11 pm by Nathan.)
Hi Minimalist, apologies for taking a while to get back to you. You've not scared me off yet! 
So you could use logic and evidence against these claims in two different ways: firstly against a claim that a particular phenomenon is actual - perhaps there is evidence that the universe is in fact eternal in the past, or the idea of finite temporality is logically impossible; secondly against a claim that a particular interpretation of the world is correct - perhaps there is evidence that moral values are grounded in something other that God's nature, or that the idea of moral values being grounded in this way is logically inconsistent. In the same way, I do my best to apply logic and evidence against non-Christian descriptions of the world.
(February 24, 2011 at 1:11 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Well, I'm not sure how xtianity "describes" the world...and even if it does it describes it 2,000 ( or at least 1,500 ) years ago. As far as logic goes I have found that logic usually breaks down in the opening premise. Xtians assume that everything they have been told is true and if you accept that as a given then it is possible to use logic to reach any conclusion you wish. It still fails to rectify the problem that the premise is false.Christianity describes the world in two senses: one, it claims that there are particular phenomenon (e.g., an external world to human conciousness, a temporally finite universe, order and structure given by laws of logic and science, moral and aesthetic values, human knowledge, etc.) and two, it gives meaning to the phenomenon we experience, in terms of God's relation to them (e.g. the universe appears designed and beautiful because it is designed and beautiful, the universe is ordered and structured so that it can be known and inhabited fruitfully, etc.). These are claims that apply independently of time. Then there are also particular historical claims as you point out, centred around the people of Israel, Jesus and the Church, which also fall into the categories of phenomenon and interpretation.
So you could use logic and evidence against these claims in two different ways: firstly against a claim that a particular phenomenon is actual - perhaps there is evidence that the universe is in fact eternal in the past, or the idea of finite temporality is logically impossible; secondly against a claim that a particular interpretation of the world is correct - perhaps there is evidence that moral values are grounded in something other that God's nature, or that the idea of moral values being grounded in this way is logically inconsistent. In the same way, I do my best to apply logic and evidence against non-Christian descriptions of the world.
Quote:"There is no possibility whatsoever of reconciling science and theology, at least in Christendom. Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn't. If he did, then Christianity becomes plausible; if he did not, then it is sheer nonsense. I defy any genuine scientist to say that he believes in the Resurrection, or indeed in any other cardinal dogma of the Christian system.I can't see why there is a conflict between believing in miracles and being a "genuine scientist" - I'd be interested in why you think there is one. Most likely we have a different view of what science is.
-- H L Mencken
