In the beginning...

[Tex]

My diagram would look exactly like his, but with Christianity on the outside and he's walling himself into atheism. By limiting his scope of knowledge, he's making himself less free, not more.

How is he limiting his knowledge? Any presupposition which never progresses beyond presupposition is not knowledge. If I am to be as generous as I can be, Christianity can never be more than an educated guess, and it almost never even approaches that. That isn't knowledge. The last 400 years of science has demonstrated loudly that even if every single word of the Bible is absolutely valid, the Christian religion does not even begin anything but the most insignificant sliver of the truth of the universe and what is in it. The Bible isn't even aware of a universe beyond a tiny backwater of the planet it's set on. With many major sects of Christianity at war with science to some varying degree, it is hard to say that the religion encourages understanding beyond what it purports to provide. Therefore, the diagram above is a very accurate depiction.

Thank you for providing the perfect example, Ryan.

Ryan here is limiting his knowledge through his own presuppositions, which can through little or no effort be brought to light. When Ryan says, "The last 400 years of science has demonstrated loudly that even if every single word of the Bible is absolutely valid...", he is actually making a claim against God rather than physics. He cannot see this because, like the article states, his mind is conditioned to this. God, being able to spawn matter at will, probably can do miracles, which would take even less of a feat than that. This limitation has made Ryan think that the entirety of Christianity is the Jewish version of redneck superstition. There is little to be done with Ryan until he himself realizes the shell he's created.

Other examples of Ryan's shell includes, " The Bible isn't even aware of a universe beyond a tiny backwater of the planet it's set on." This statement allows us to know that Ryan holds the presupposition that any book trying to teach that doesn't care about the physical is worthless. However, I also believe he allows for the contradiction of other books, mostly due to a greater presupposition that "the bible is wrong and bad".

Finally, Ryan's last presupposition is here: "With many major sects of Christianity at war with science to some varying degree, it is hard to say that the religion encourages understanding beyond what it purports to provide." Apparently, there is a war between religion and science, and he has taken a side. This, too, limits his knowledge. More rational people would consider this the same as arguing that large scale physics (black holes, etc.) is better than small scale physics (quarks, etc.). However, because of his own presupposition, Ryan cannot even process this information. He probably will think that this is completely ridiculous, but these are the walls he set up and the walls he must take down.

Join us next time on PSYCHOANALYZING RYANTOLOGY!

Yes. The guy says Christians believe the bible is inspired because its just so rooted in the brain. I called this "presuppositions" and it is what he actually makes his argument against. He has the standard evangelical definition of faith as "blind trust". This teaching wrong. If you learn, your faith grows. Never should it be encouraged to "to put aside the experience and intellect supposedly given to us by God – and to blindly 'just believe.'" That is garbage from lazy pastors with no education. He then claims those same presuppositions make us "condemn" ourselves, which I'll concede to.

I think his conclusion "the presuppositions are wrong" is wrong. Instead, I think everyone has presuppositions, including atheists. To evaluate independently of presuppositions is a great skill that allows for more truth. This "more truth" over time becomes another presupposition. The knowledge being a presupposition doesn't make it false, it's just the principles by which the brain operates. My diagram would look exactly like his, but with Christianity on the outside and he's walling himself into atheism. By limiting his scope of knowledge, he's making himself less free, not more.

Those are a lot of words which are not quite coherent but you have one common point that is clearly in error. ALL knowledge must be founded on the observation of physical evidence.

One can only validate a presupposition by using physical evidence. If it cannot be validated then it is of no interest. It may or may not be correct but you cannot know.

Another point is your consistent use of one word, Christianity. Which Christianity? 7th Day Adventist, Roman Catholic, Unitarian or some other? I have picked ones which preclude some pious gibberish claiming they are all the same. I mean, does Christianity have a trinity or not?

First Paragraph: There is ontological thought, which needs no physical evidence. However, largely, the physical is a part of most knowledge.

Second: One can only validate a presupposition by using logic. If you needed physical evidence to validate a presupposition, you would need physical evidence to validate that physical evidence is needed to validate a presupposition.

Third: I'm not concerned with denominations. I'm concerned with truth. If I say "Roman Catholicism", I also deny the authority of the pontiff, purgatory, and prayer to saints (including Mary). If I say "Swedenborgian", I also deny modalism. If I say "Tex-ism", I believe all I believe to be true, but I have areas which I don't have knowledge, areas that have not been properly examined, and areas that I may be flat wrong in.