Christian Libertarians and Atheists - Common Ground?

[lowellwballard]

Welcome to the forum.

Had to read up on christian libers: [/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_libertarianism]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_libertarianism

I personally don't think we have that much in common. Just mentioning the reformation gave me the willies.

Edit: hold the phone, are you christian liber............ or liber christian? They are different you know.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Christianity

Thanks.  I wasn't aware of the two versions.  In reading those, I would think "Christian Libertarian" is closer, but I don't think of Luther as being libertarian at all (as a reference in the article suggests) since he used state power to enforce belief.  Maybe it would be closer to say I am a libertarian (freedom of thought, rationality being primary) who believes some of the Christian claims.

I know early Christians (before there was a strong church hierarchy) were mistaken to be atheists.  Also, being libertarian, to maintain freedom of thought requires rejecting imposed doctrines and various forms of mysticism, so I am thinking we may have at least that in common.

---

46. Deductive logic requires inductive logic to support its premises.   

Deductive logic does not need inductive logic to support its premises. Deductive logic can be used to arrive at a priori conclusions. No inductive logic necessary. Math is a good example.

“Faith” is treating something that is probably true as if it is definitely true. [i]Inductive logic is probabilistic and so requires faith.  (that is different than the common religious definition of blind "faith").[/i]

I don't agree with you here. First, your definition of faith might be disputed, but maybe that's what faith is to you, so I'll leave it alone. But why treat something that's probably true as if it's definitely true? Is that logical? Isn't it more reasonable to treat things that are probably true like they're probably true? There is only one category of things that I treat as definitely true: things that are definitely true. To do otherwise is unreasonable.

I also disagree that probability requires faith. But let's see if you come back before we dig into that discussion.


Welcome to AF!

Thanks.  Good points.  That really makes me have to think.

I guess I am referring to applying "A priori" knowledge to an actual, rather than abstract, situation (perhaps is that the same as "A posteriori"?).  So, the question may be, is there any application of deductive logic that doesn't also require some form of inductive logic, even if the premises seem almost certainly true?

Yes, I think the definition that religion uses for "Faith" is problematic.  So, I agree the definition I am suggesting is not common and is debatable.

By saying we treat things as "definitely true" that are actually "probably true", I am referring to how we don't give a second thought to innumerable low probability events that could occur.  For example, we have "faith" that every elevator we step into will work even though there is a slight possibility it will fail.  So, I guess I am arguing that "faith" shouldn't be a religious notion, but rather no different than how we actually act on probabilities in other areas of life.

I guess I am not sure there are any premises in real life that are actually 100% "definitely true".  At very least, human perceptions of reality would seem to be fallible.