RE: [asa] Deism, Apologetics, and Neglected Arguments

Theism means recognizing the existence of god, but then, one’s god can be someone else’s devil. Therefore, becoming a theist is not the same as recognizing the necessity and existence of a Creator of all that is. The latter is the logical conclusion of some quiet and much thoughtful introspection. The true God can only be revealed to us. We can never figure Him out by pure thought.
Moorad
________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Schwarzwald [schwarzwald@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:28 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Deism, Apologetics, and Neglected Arguments

Heya George,

I've already said that, certainly, bringing someone to theism does not guarantee that they're going to become Christian. But I don't think there's a "risk-free" approach to this - absolutely any move you make (including making no move at all) has a risk attached. One has to keep in mind their message and their approach, but at the end of the day do what seems to make the most sense. And I maintain that the approach I'm talking about makes quite a lot of sense, specifically in the west. I wouldn't say it's the only approach available, or that it doesn't have risks, of course. But I'd need to hear more than "They may end up believing differently than we/you do" to reject it, because that's the status quo for this group as is.

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 9:38 PM, George Murphy <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com<mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>> wrote:
It's not at all clear to me that a person becoming just any kind of theist is better - i.e., closer to Christian faith - than atheism. From a theoretical standpoint, Christianity is very different from many varieties of theism. It's not without significance that the early Christians were accused of being atheists by the pagans. If you ask many of the people who "believe in God" what God they believe in, you may have to say "I don't believe in that God either." & practically, being a member of many theistic communities (e.g., Islam) introduces constraints against acceptance of Christianity that are not felt by atheists. & even the "mere theist" may have settled upon notions about God that that make it difficult to take seriously the belief that the real God is revealed in a man dying on cross.

Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm<http://home.roadrunner.com/%7Escitheologyglm>
----- Original Message -----
From: Schwarzwald<mailto:schwarzwald@gmail.com>
To: asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 9:18 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Deism, Apologetics, and Neglected Arguments

...........................................
George Murphy: I really do believe that you are correct when you talk about there being a danger in making use of mere theistic arguments. However, I'd simply point out that there's danger in just about every apologetic approach - get an atheist to accept the existence of a grand designer or creator and for all you know you've just turned him into a hindu (I'd point out that with CS Lewis, this was apparently a very live possibility early on) or something else. At the same time, I'd consider an atheist becoming a hindu, a panentheist, an idealist, a pagan, or a "mere theist" to be progress. In other words, if we're thinking purely pragmatically here, I'm tempted to take a Pascal-like view - whatever danger there may be in using arguments for mere theism in discussion with agnostics or practical atheists, it's outweighed by the danger/detriment of the status quo being maintained with them. I'll put this again bluntly: I'd much rather deal with a mere theist of just about any !
 stripe rather than the alternative, because at least the mere theist can be expected to take the question of God seriously.
...........................................

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Aug 18 22:44:17 2009