Re: A profound disturbance found in Yak butter.

On Wed Jun 7 23:34 , "jack syme" sent:

>Well the point of this post was to show you that there is such a thing as
>Reformed Epistemology, and it is really epistemology, not just apologetics.
>Plantiga is a heavy hitter, dont take him lightly. Maybe you need to spend
>some time reading what he has to say. In this essay he claims that there
>are two core beliefs in our faith: 1) The world was created by God, an
>almighty, all-knowing, and perfectly good personal being. and 2) Human
>beings require salvation, and God has provided a unique way of salvation
>through the incarnation, life, sacrificial death, and resurrection of his
>divine son (Jesus Christ).

I will stand corrected about Reformed Epistemology. I was wrong. Thanks to you and David O. for teaching me
something new.

>It is not a matter of checking your mind at the door of the church, it is a
>matter of taking a leap beyond the evidence.

Extrapolation from the evidence is fine, the phrase "leap beyond" sounds to me like the evidence really doesn't
matter. For example

Does "leap beyond" include taking a leap IN SPITE OF THE EVIDENCE to believe that the flood is in Mesopotamia?

Does "leap beyond" knowing that the science in the account is abysmally false but believing that there is a
mystic message in there somewhere anyway?

Why is the above NOT checking our minds at the churchhouse door?

>
>I know you are not looking for proof. But you will not accept anyone else's
>explanations either. If all of early Genesis is completely falsified
>scientfically, does that invalidate everything? Is there anything else that
>is better? You might hate me for saying this, but is your difficulty an
>issue of pride? You are brilliant I can see, but perhaps you are fooled by
>your own brilliance?

First off, I am not brilliant, I work hard. If I were brilliant, I would give up all this futile activity on
this and other lists and spend more time managing my investments. Clearly I have my priorities wrong

Secondly, I want those who won't answer my question about the Great Green Slug to note how I am answering an
uncomfortable question for my position. This is what should be done with questions like that.

The question of whether or not I have a pride issue is a good one, and of course I do. I wouldn't be honest with
me or others if I denied that. but the more interesting question to me along these lines is does a pride problem
invalidate logic?

As I told a friend of mine at work, who had just found out that I had stuff on the internet, the struggle I have
is why would an all-knowing, all powerful God inspire an account of creation that makes it look like He wasn't
there when the world was created?

And in my mind, while theologically salvation doesn't rely on a historical creation account, the truth of
Judaism, out of which Christianity came rests on the idea that God created the world. If God shows no signs of
knowing what happened on the day of creation, how can we possibly know that he really is the creator?

(I know the accommodationalists will tell me how idiotic such a question is and that it is only worthy of being
ignored). And from your description, Plantinga would merely tell me that I should believe the assumptions of the
religion regardless,apparently, as you say, of whether or not it is true. To me this is the height of
irrationalism. It is the irrationalism of religion which

>
>Take some advice from Hamlet: "There are more things in heaven and earth,
>Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

I absolutely beleive that, and the unfortunate thing is that I only have one life to learn what I can of those
things.

>
>You have asked these same questions over and over again for years. And you
>have asked them to many Christian believers, some of them brilliant, and
>highly educated. And yet you are not satisfied with the answers.

It is not that I am unsatified with the answers, I am not really getting any. As I said last night very few even
address the question of whether the Great Green Sluggist could do this. I can't figure out why this is an
intellectually off limits question. I often asked Ray Bohlin to tell me what the Natural Limit to Biological
Change was. I never got an answer other than that he didn't believe that morphological change would be
unlimited. With the accommodationalist approach, I rarely get an answer to the fair question of whether or not
it is ok for other religions to do the same?

And one thing I am hoping for by asking these questions (obviously futilely) is to get some of the rational
religionists to see that one can't have much more than a fist full of sand, epistemologically, if one ignores
observation and acts as if it doesn't matter. And observational data means some form of concordism.

I also deal with lots of atheists. The kind of logic and reasoning exhibited here (exclusivism of Plantiga, the
believe-it-even-if-it-isn't-true theology) is rightly laughed at by those who are truly leading the long-term
cultural change. YECs are winning in the short term, but my friend Wil Provine is right, people are becoming
practical atheists.

  Maybe
>you are looking in the wrong place. Dont get me wrong, I like the questions
>you ask, and am not implying in anyway that they shouldnt be asked.

Under what rock should I look?

>
>Now, to answer your question, yes the GGS apologist can do it, the Morman
>can do it, the Animist can do it, the Buddhists can do it.
>But what should you care that they can do it?

THANK YOU!!!!!!! YEAH, SOMEONE FINALLY ANSWERED IT IN THIS THREAD. YOU, SIR, HAVE MY RESPECT BECAUSE AT LEAST YOU
ARE BEING HONEST WITH THE LOGIC. There really is no other consistent answer. To say 'no' makes one a hypocrite,
to say 'yes' risks one going on to the conclusion that religions are nothing more than self-delusions. And that
is why I think people ignore my question or call it nonsense.

Note to those who have ignored the question, why can Jack answer it when you can't?

You have raised a very fascinating question. Should we care that they do it? Hmmmmm.... I don't, but then I
don't beleive they have metaphysical truth anyway. But if the only chewing gum and bailing wire holding
Christianity together is accommodationalism, which I do think has metaphysical truth, then there is a problem.
So, personally I don't care that they do it, I view them as wrong. But I do care that Christianity do it because
it makes us so much like them. That is why concordism is the only real hope to avoid a mere bailing wire and
chewing gum religion.

>
>Can all of these other religions, and your GGS claim the same thing, that
>they are the Truth, yes they can. But in the end they will be wrong. And
>we will be right. How can I know this? I cant, but I believe it anyway.
>It really is just that simple.

Very honest answer.
Received on Thu Jun 8 06:24:51 2006