ARCHIVE: Presuppositionalism - What and Why?

[Hilston]

Knight writes:You assert traditional, societal and moral evidence is scientific evidence?

Of course it is. It's observable. It's testable. It's repeatable. Traditions can be observed and evaluated. Societal norms can be examined and assessed. Moral values can be observed and correlated. Experts in anthropological and sociological fields are called scientists.

Knight writes:
If so... in your opinion what type of evidence WOULDN'T be considered scientific evidence?

None. Where is the disconnect here, Knight? You, speaking for Enyart, say that there is something other than scientific evidence that Enyart bases his belief on. Please, just spit it out, or recant your claim.

Originally posted by Knight
Well... all I can say is praise the Lord for these so called "unbiblical arguments and incoherent reasonings" because I, my wife, my 6 kids, my dad, my sister and her husband and their 4 kids, my wife's sister and her husband and their 2 children all have come to know the Lord through these incoherent reasonings.

Yeah, that's a bullet-proof argument for false doctrine if I ever saw one. If you can't defend a view on Biblical grounds, resort to the anecdotal promotional claims. Praise the Lord for Benny Hinn, too. How about Robert Tilton, Oral Roberts, Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Paul Crouch, and Jack Hyles. Might as well add Madonna and the Mormons to that list, since I personally know two people who came to the Lord through their influence as well.

:kookoo:

 

[Hilston]

Clete writes:
First of all, the atheist's lack of ability to explain the evidence is a permanent condition.

Not in his own mind. Atheists have all kinds of explanations. Both debates I heard between Bob Enyart and atheists were disastrous. Michael Shermer and Doug Krueger both made him look like a fool and left the debate wiser in their own conceit, exactly what Prov 26:4,5 warns against. Most atheists have never had their fundamental presuppositions adequately challenged, and until they are, they just plod along, fully satisfied with their own explanations for the evidence. But once they have their basic assumptions challenged, they (sometimes) realize the problems underlying their worldview. I've seen it happen. They get to the end of the debate and say, "OK, fine. I can't prove my basic assumptions and you can. I'm still not going to believe in the Big Man in the Sky." At which point I explain that they have openly preferred an irrational and arbitrary worldview to a rational and coherent one, and that judgment day is going to be all the more horrific for them as a result.

Clete writes:
It’s not like there is some eureka moment coming in which some huge break through in science proves the nonexistence of God.

According to the atheists, the break-throughs are innumerable, devastating and a done-deal. Just ask them. So what are we to do? Just say, "Nuh uh. You're wrong. You can't explain the evidence." And then the atheist proceeds to do just that. Of course, all the while they are borrowing our tools to do so, and we ought not to allow this.

Clete writes:
That is not going to happen because it cannot happen. A point with which I am sure you agree.

No, they do it all the time. Everyday. In their professions, in their laboratories, in their research, they sit around coming up with godless explanations for the evidence. It's what they're paid to do and their employers see it as money well spent.

Clete writes:
Secondly, the only objection you have with use of such evidence is when one uses it in an apologetic setting. It's not that you think that the evidence is somehow wrong or misleading, or that the conclusions based on that evidence are in error, it's simply the circumstances of their application that you object too. Isn't that correct, or have I missed something?

I object to the use of evidence with or by those who cannot justify their methods or criteria of assessment. That's all. And it includes professing Christians. They don't just get to use the tools for free. They have to prove that they know how to use them and why they work.

Clete writes:
This is where I find a problem with the insistence upon the exclusivity of the presuppositional apologetic. Even (especially) if one assumes that regeneration plays a role here. If regeneration is true, the fact is, that you cannot tell who is and who isn't regenerate until after they have believed.

It isn't relevant to the argument against the atheist. It is only personally relevant from the standpoint of the apologist in answer to the question: How do you know what you know, and how do you know you're not being deceived? It's a different matter than proving the same. My knowledge (certainty, assurance, confidence) is different than my proof. Certainty is available only to the regenerate; it's not available to the unregenerate.

Clete writes:
You also hold that those who are regenerate are able to use logic and the scientific method without "question begging" and are able to come to genuinely reliable conclusions. So what if I Bob Enyart was regenerated when he began looking at this evidence and was therefore able to accurately analyze that evidence and come to a conclusion that was not only correct but that he could be certain of based on the correctness of his Biblical worldview.

That is the correct method and exactly the way it's supposed to happen. Note that the correctness of the Biblical worldview precedes the evaluation of evidence. What Knight is claiming is the opposite: He first looks at the evidence, picking himself up by his own bootstraps, presuming to use tools that he cannot justify, putting God in the dock for evaluation and judgment, and then decides whether or not this God is worthy of his worship. Of course, no one really views it or states it so harshly, but it is exactly what is going on when people presume in this way. It's the sin of Adam.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Hilston

Of course it is. It's observable. It's testable. It's repeatable. Traditions can be observed and evaluated. Societal norms can be examined and assessed. Moral values can be observed and correlated. Experts in anthropological and sociological fields are called scientists.

None. Where is the disconnect here, Knight? You, speaking for Enyart, say that there is something other than scientific evidence that Enyart bases his belief on. Please, just spit it out, or recant your claim.

Yeah, that's a bullet-proof argument for false doctrine if I ever saw one. If you can't defend a view on Biblical grounds, resort to the anecdotal promotional claims. Praise the Lord for Benny Hinn, too. How about Robert Tilton, Oral Roberts, Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Paul Crouch, and Jack Hyles. Might as well add Madonna and the Mormons to that list, since I personally know two people who came to the Lord through their influence as well.

:kookoo:

:sigh: Every time I go against my better judgment and attempt to discuss something with you Jim all I get is sarcasm and rudeness.

Is it within you to have a friendly discussion?

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Knight

:sigh: Every time I go against my better judgment and attempt to discuss something with you Jim all I get is sarcasm and rudeness.

Is it within you to have a friendly discussion?

Knight, there was nothing unfriendly or sarcastic about what I wrote. Read it again; imagine a smile on my face. Imagine the tone of voice you heard in our phone conversation. Try not to be so defensive and it will sound perfectly friendly and civil. Do you remember what you wrote in the previous post?

"Well... all I can say is praise the Lord for these so called 'unbiblical arguments and incoherent reasonings' because I, my wife, my 6 kids, my dad, my sister and her husband and their 4 kids, my wife's sister and her husband and their 2 children all have come to know the Lord through these incoherent reasonings."

What is your praising the Lord for "so-called 'unbiblical arguments and coherent reasonings'" if not sarcasm? I answered in kind, with the same kind of irony that you used. But it's ok for you to use it, isn't it? If it makes you feel better, go ahead and consider the following statement to be quite unfriendly: Your modus operandi is a double standard; one for you and your friends, and another for the rest of the hostile world.

While your tone and your choice of words may be the friendliest ever, your M.O. is disgusting and one of the unfriendliest things I can imagine short of violence.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Hilston
Not in his own mind. Atheists have all kinds of explanations.

…they do it all the time. Everyday. In their professions, in their laboratories, in their research, they sit around coming up with godless explanations for the evidence. It's what they're paid to do and their employers see it as money well spent.

I agree that the atheist THINKS he has explained the evidence but he hasn't REALLY explained anything unless he happens upon the truth in spite of his unbelief (which happens quite a bit, by the way). The evidence in the world around us was created by God, and so must, by necessity, always lead to the conclusion that He does, in fact, exist if that evidence is correctly collected and analyzed.
Presup's argue that there can be no neutral position from which to analyze the available evidence and I agree with that but I also think that it isn't necessarily relevant. Suppose that the atheist analyzes the data and comes up with what he thinks is a good explanation, then the theists analyzes the same data set and comes up with a different explanation. Two different conclusion based on the same evidence, one wrong, the other right, both biased. Ignoring and even accepting the biases, should it not be possible for the theist to demonstrate that his conclusion, his explanation of the evidence, is far superior to that of the atheists? Wouldn't a correct answer always be more easily demonstrated as true than a false one? Not that this would be convincing to the atheist necessarily, but it could be, especially if this atheist is elect and doesn't know it, right? And so, neutrality isn't necessary, only intellectual honesty.

I object to the use of evidence with or by those who cannot justify their methods or criteria of assessment. That's all. And it includes professing Christians. They don't just get to use the tools for free. They have to prove that they know how to use them and why they work.

Who says? The Bible certainly never makes any such claim. And while I agree when you get to an epistemological level in the discussion, a Biblical worldview is indeed the only one that holds up but as far as I am concerned that is only just so much more evidence. And what's more, you use it as evidence, and expect the atheist to factor the epistemological problems that he has in as evidence, even proof, that his worldview is incorrect.
It the same thing, I guess it was I'm getting at. You are doing the same thing except that the evidence that you are presenting is epistemological. Not that that is a small difference, indeed, it's an important difference but the point is that you are still presenting evidence that must be analyzed via the very logic that you insist that they are not allowed to use in the first place and so I don't understand why they can analyze epistemological evidence and not any other sort of evidence.

It isn't relevant to the argument against the atheist. It is only personally relevant from the standpoint of the apologist in answer to the question: How do you know what you know, and how do you know you're not being deceived? It's a different matter than proving the same. My knowledge (certainty, assurance, confidence) is different than my proof. Certainty is available only to the regenerate; it's not available to the unregenerate.

But you can still prove that which you believe, right? And this proof is done by a logical analysis of the evidence, is it not?

That is the correct method and exactly the way it's supposed to happen. Note that the correctness of the Biblical worldview precedes the evaluation of evidence. What Knight is claiming is the opposite: He first looks at the evidence, picking himself up by his own bootstraps, presuming to use tools that he cannot justify, putting God in the dock for evaluation and judgment, and then decides whether or not this God is worthy of his worship. Of course, no one really views it or states it so harshly, but it is exactly what is going on when people presume in this way. It's the sin of Adam.

I think you are reading more into Bob's statement that what was meant. By your own logic all that is required is that the Biblical worldview be in place prior to an analysis of the evidence. You have not said that one must be aware that his worldview is Biblical. In fact, you have, in effect, claimed that everyone has, to one degree or another, a Biblical worldview whether they are aware of it or not. So what's to keep them from a correct analysis of the available evidence and what is the point from withholding it from them? And if such an analysis was done by someone who wasn't aware that he had a Biblical worldview to start with, wouldn't that person naturally make the statement that he had come to faith based on an analysis of the evidence? Whether this assessment is accurate or not isn't the point, the point is, that you cannot tell you is and is not elect (assuming for the sake of this discussion that election is a correct theology), nor can you tell what someone's presuppositions are by looking at them and so cannot say with certainty that an examination of the evidence is inappropriate for anyone individual person.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Balder]

Hilston,

So if you will indulge me, I wish to ask you more general
questions in light of my (admittedly inadequate) understanding of
Buddhism.

That's a good idea. That's why I gave you a concise statement why I believed Buddhism provided the foundations for a coherent worldview and met all the standards of validity which you believe apply exclusively to Christianity -- I thought we could build on those few key claims. I think some of the Guenther quotes were also relevant, but the bulk of them were probably unnecessary and I'm sorry for clouding the water with admittedly foreign and difficult terminology.

Hilston wrote:
I know aspects of the true logical system insofar as I understand what the Bible has to say about logic, by description and by example. I'm no logician, but I have a basic understanding. I'm also familiar with some of the human corruptions of logic.

...The true logical system is both demonstrated and affirmed in the
Judeo-Christian Bible. My knowledge of the general reliability of my logical processes is based on faith in the Judeo-Christian Bible. Of course, my initial use of logic, prior to my introduction to the Bible, came quite naturally, as it does with most everyone. However, my later encounters with the teachings of the Bible explained to me the nearly universal recognition and/or use of the laws of logic.

If you know the "true logical system" only partially, and largely by faith, how are you able to ascertain which human systems of logic are corruptions of a logical system which is admittedly opaque to you?

When you write, "My knowledge of the general reliability of my logical processes is based on faith in the Judeo-Christian Bible," I pick up on a (perhaps unintentional) sleight-of-hand. What you really are saying is that you have faith in the general reliability of your senses based on your faith in the reliability of the Biblical witness. Because if the structure of the whole rests not on direct knowledge but on faith, then the specific items which you claim are supported by that structure cannot be known more absolutely and with more surety than the supporting structure itself.

You say that the Judeo-Christian Bible demonstrates and affirms the "true logical system." I have several questions about this claim. We've ascertained that you're not sure about all of the particulars of the "true logical system," but you have faith that what is recorded in the Bible definitely reflects aspects of it. First off, how do you know this? How do you know the Bible reflects parts of an entity which is unknown to you, at least in its full expression? Aren't you really saying that, based on your faith in the Bible, you have faith that whatever logical elements show up in the Bible must be "parts" of the true system of logic?

I've read the Bible front to back, and I do not recall many overt claims about logic, laws of logic, the necessary foundations for logic, and so on. Admittedly it's been at least 10 years since I read the Bible all the way through, so my memory may be failing me; can you point me to direct,clear Biblical teachings on logic? I have no problem believing that the Bible affirms and demonstrates logic, but that feature is certainly not unique to the Bible. I would dare say that most human documents at least implicitly affirm and demonstrate logic, if only because logic is a feature (but not the only feature) of human communication and thus human texts. Is there something about the Bible's affirmation and demonstration of logic that sets it in a league of its own, as the exemplar and in fact the necessary foundation of logic itself?

You may have read some of my correspondence with Clete and others on the "Religion is Obsolete" thread. I'm interested in your thoughts: if the Bible is indeed the ultimate source and foundation for logic and truth, forming the presuppositional bedrock for all valid forms of knowledge, how do you account for the fact that the Bible presupposes an outmoded, mythological, and factually incorrect cosmology as the backdrop of its narrative? If you haven't read my conversations with Clete, then in particular I am talking about the common three-tiered, enclosed universe of the ancients, where the sky was believed to be a metal dome (which, in the Bible, serves to separate celestial waters from terrestial waters and to support God's throne),studded with stars and supported by pillars, equipped with "gates" for admitting water from the celestial oceans and storehouses for storing hail, wind, etc, etc. If the Bible truly represents the only coherent, logical, absolutely true portrait of the universe, including its nature, origin, and organization, then how do you account for its presupposing the mythological (and incorrect if quite common) worldview I've described above?

I will close this letter here, but will post another one answering your questions to me soon.

Peace,
Balder

 

[Clete]

Knight and Jim,

I know that neither of you have asked my opinion and so I will offer this one observation and then will keep my mouth shut until asked a direct question but coming from a guy who likes both of you very much and is impressed by the intelligent, honest and articulate nature of you both, I would submit that you both read far more into each other's posts than is there.

Knight you seem to miss Jim's sarcasm and read it as overt hostility (which is pretty easy to do sometimes) and when you respond to the perceived hostility Jim reacts to what he thinks is a double standard on your part because as far as he is concerned, he's just dishing out the ice cream that you brought to the party! Then the real trouble begins because at that point there really is hostility and all of a sudden we've got a real nasty couple of posts on our hands.

Okay, there's my two cents. I'll shut up now.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Hilston

While your tone and your choice of words may be the friendliest ever, your M.O. is disgusting and one of the unfriendliest things I can imagine short of violence.

Uh... Okay... :kookoo:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Knight and Jim,

I know that neither of you have asked my opinion and so I will offer this one observation and then will keep my mouth shut until asked a direct question but coming from a guy who likes both of you very much and is impressed by the intelligent, honest and articulate nature of you both, I would submit that you both read far more into each other's posts than is there.

Knight you seem to miss Jim's sarcasm and read it as overt hostility (which is pretty easy to do sometimes) and when you respond to the perceived hostility Jim reacts to what he thinks is a double standard on your part because as far as he is concerned, he's just dishing out the ice cream that you brought to the party! Then the real trouble begins because at that point there really is hostility and all of a sudden we've got a real nasty couple of posts on our hands.

Okay, there's my two cents. I'll shut up now.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Point well taken.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Hilston

Of course it is. It's observable. It's testable. It's repeatable. Traditions can be observed and evaluated. Societal norms can be examined and assessed. Moral values can be observed and correlated. Experts in anthropological and sociological fields are called scientists.

I think our misunderstanding here is that I was talking about scientific evidence (as in evidence from the sciences) and you were talking about scientifically looking at the evidence (whatever type of evidence that may be). Sorry for the misunderstanding

 

[Hilston]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
I agree that the atheist THINKS he has explained the evidence but he hasn't REALLY explained anything unless he happens upon the truth in spite of his unbelief (which happens quite a bit, by the way).

I agree, but the question is not whether or not the atheist can balance his checkbook. Of course he can. The question is whether or not the atheist's espoused claims comport with reality in light of his underlying presuppositions. The aim is to show his view is incoherent, to expose his assumptions as groundless, and to demonstrate that he has no excuse for his rebellion or for rejecting his Creator's demands upon his life.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
The evidence in the world around us was created by God, and so must, by necessity, always lead to the conclusion that He does, in fact, exist if that evidence is correctly collected and analyzed.

I agree, and the conclusion is in fact that He does exist and that all men are accountable to Him. The problem, however, lies in the rebellion of men who look for excuses. The problem is not a lack of evidence, but an improper means of assessing the evidence. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom. If a man will not begin with submission to Christ, all of his reasoning and observation will be suspect, skewed in support of his efforts to push God away from him.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Presup's argue that there can be no neutral position from which to analyze the available evidence and I agree with that but I also think that it isn't necessarily relevant.

If it's not relevant, then you might as well ask the atheist to lift himself by his own shoe laces. If it's not relevant, what is? If you grant neutrality to the atheist, you're surrendering to him the grounds upon which to be his own lawmaker and to sit in judgment of God. To ask him to evaluate evidence on his own presumed autonomy is to ask a Luciferian question: "Hath God said?" He'll respond by trying to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, leaving God's law completely out of the equation. You will have lost before you even get out of the starting blocks. He is left wiser in his own conceit, and you're left looking like a fool.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Suppose that the atheist analyzes the data and comes up with what he thinks is a good explanation, then the theists analyzes the same data set and comes up with a different explanation. Two different conclusion based on the same evidence, one wrong, the other right, both biased. Ignoring and even accepting the biases, should it not be possible for the theist to demonstrate that his conclusion, his explanation of the evidence, is far superior to that of the atheists?

On what basis? On the basis of more accurate measurements? On the basis of greater quantity of data? On the basis of the inclusion of outlying data? On the basis of pedigree? On the basis of peer review? Each of these presumed criteria is fraught with unspoken and unchallenged assumptions. You're correct to say we all have biases. The question is who has the correct bias and how is that established?

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Wouldn't a correct answer always be more easily demonstrated as true than a false one?

It depends on what your presuppositions are, what you consider to be "correct" and what you consider to be "false." Without the fear of the Lord as prerequisite, what is "correct" or "false" is up for grabs.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Not that this would be convincing to the atheist necessarily, but it could be, especially if this atheist is elect and doesn't know it, right? And so, neutrality isn't necessary, only intellectual honesty.

If the atheist is elect and doesn't know it, I don't know it either. So I will continue to treat him as a gainsayer until I see full submission and surrender to the Word of Truth. Until he submits, he is still a rebel, opposing God, using the tools that come from God for the purpose of expressing his opposition. There is no neutrality, ever. He will pretend to be neutral, as all atheists do, and on that fact alone, intellectual honesty goes out the window.

Hilston wrote:
I object to the use of evidence with or by those who cannot justify their methods or criteria of assessment. That's all. And it includes professing Christians. They don't just get to use the tools for free. They have to prove that they know how to use them and why they work.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Who says? The Bible certainly never makes any such claim.

It does indeed. When the Bible condemns right behavior due to a wicked mind (the sacrifice that is brought with a wicked mind is worse than an abomination, Pr 21:27), we can understand the offense God takes at that kind of hypocrisy. But how are we to understand when mundane behaviors, such as plowing, are viewed as sin? Even the plowing of the wicked is sin (Pr 21:4). Why? It's because the fear of the Lord is the begining of true knowledge and sound wisdom. By extension, if even such a seemingly neutral activity as plowing is condemned by God because of the wicked mind behind it, so also is the balancing of one's checkbook and the presumptuous wicked mind behind that activity. They don't get to use the tools of God (reasoning and sensory faculties) for free. It comes with a price, and they will be condemned for their presumption. Every inch of soil that is plowed, every "one" that is carried to the next column of their check register, is further indictment against the wicked mind for its rebellion and hatred of their Creator.

The fool has said in his heart, "No God" (PS 14:1). Why does this describe a fool? Because he wants to use God's tools apart from God. But apart from God, there is no true wisdom or knowledge. The fool presumes to be wise, to use the tools of reason, but in truth, he has no delight in understanding, except that his heart may discover itself (Pr 18:2). But he that trusts his own heart is a fool (Pr 28:26). For atheist (i.e., the fool), all that matters to him is his own judgment, his own wisdom, his own reasoning skills, his own assessment of good and evil. That is the sin of Adam. But whoso walks wisely, he shall be delivered (Pr 28:26). Why? Because he walks according to God's word, not according to his own presumed neutrality, using God's tools without warrant or justification.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
And while I agree when you get to an epistemological level in the discussion, a Biblical worldview is indeed the only one that holds up but as far as I am concerned that is only just so much more evidence. And what's more, you use it as evidence, and expect the atheist to factor the epistemological problems that he has in as evidence, even proof, that his worldview is incorrect.

The question is not whether or not I expect the atheist to factor in the epistemological problems as presented, but whether or not the atheist can justify that very ability to factor them in. I don't doubt this ability for one second, nor do I deny it of the atheist. I say, "Go ahead and reason this out, but you're on notice: Every act of reasoning is further indictment against you because you've stolen fire from the gods, and it's personal" (in a manner of speaking).

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
It the same thing, I guess it was I'm getting at. You are doing the same thing except that the evidence that you are presenting is epistemological.

It's not the same thing. It is a presuppositional, not evidentiary, approach. The latter asks the person to use his reasoning skills to draw a certain conclusion. The former asks the person to justify and prove the verity of his reasoning skills. The absurdity that is exposed by the former is head and shoulders above the Mexican standoff that results from the latter.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Not that that is a small difference, indeed, it's an important difference but the point is that you are still presenting evidence that must be analyzed via the very logic that you insist that they are not allowed to use in the first place and so I don't understand why they can analyze epistemological evidence and not any other sort of evidence.

What is "epistemological evidence"? Can you give an example?

Hilston wrote:
It isn't relevant to the argument against the atheist. It is only personally relevant from the standpoint of the apologist in answer to the question: How do you know what you know, and how do you know you're not being deceived? It's a different matter than proving the same. My knowledge (certainty, assurance, confidence) is different than my proof. Certainty is available only to the regenerate; it's not available to the unregenerate.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
But you can still prove that which you believe, right? And this proof is done by a logical analysis of the evidence, is it not?

Sure, and I expect them to use logical analysis. Their ability to do this is not in question. What is in question is their accounting for this ability and what is thus exposed is the fact that the materialist worldview is self-refuting.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
I think you are reading more into Bob's statement that what was meant. By your own logic all that is required is that the Biblical worldview be in place prior to an analysis of the evidence. You have not said that one must be aware that his worldview is Biblical. In fact, you have, in effect, claimed that everyone has, to one degree or another, a Biblical worldview whether they are aware of it or not. So what's to keep them from a correct analysis of the available evidence and what is the point from withholding it from them?

Sin and false presuppositions are what keep them from a correct analysis of the available evidence. There is no "withholding it from them." I give it to them all the time. I just don't give them any grounds on which to dismiss it. I might say, "Look at the stars. The heavens declare the handiwork of God." Of course, they'll disagree. I tell them they can't disagree without borrowing from my worldview. And so on.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
And if such an analysis was done by someone who wasn't aware that he had a Biblical worldview to start with, wouldn't that person naturally make the statement that he had come to faith based on an analysis of the evidence?

No. If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. Say for example Joe Atheist sees the absurdity of his worldview and the futility of his atheistic assumptions, realizes the superiority of the biblical worldview and wants to submit his reasoning to the Lordship of Christ. What was it that changed him? What was it that turned him from hating God and the scriptures to embracing His Lord and the authority of God's Word? Regeneration is the answer. Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
Whether this assessment is accurate or not isn't the point, the point is, that you cannot tell [who] is and is not elect (assuming for the sake of this discussion that election is a correct theology), ...

I agree, but it doesn't matter. Every hostile opponent is viewed as non-elect until proven otherwise. Guilty until proven innocent.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer
... nor can you tell what someone's presuppositions are by looking at them and so cannot say with certainty that an examination of the evidence is inappropriate for anyone individual person.

You've seen this debates, Clete. How long does it take to find out whether or not someone's reasoning is floating in the void? Two or three questions is all it takes, provided they give straight answers. I will grant that sometimes a person has never given much thought to these questions and their answers might be sloppy. But I try to help them through it, and if it seems to me that a person is a believer who has just never considered such questions, I try to show them the importance of having a clear conception of a biblical epistemology.

I know this is a lot to read. But I'm trying to be thorough. I must say how pleasantly surprised I am and delighted that you're willing to consider the merits of this matter. I was ready to give up at an earlier point. I'm glad to have pegged you incorrectly.

 

[Balder]

Hilston,

If you haven't noticed, this post has undergone several edits and additions. It's finished now.

Balder writes:
Yes, an unconscious entity can have being. Unconsciousness is still a form of consciousness, albeit often a stepped down, non-self-reflective form of consciousness.

Hilston replied:
So, would you say a shard of metal is an unconscious entity with a stepped down, non-self-reflective form of consciousness?

No, a shard of metal is not an "entity." The atomic and molecular constituents of metal may be considered to have a form of prehension, but the organization of metal itself is not such that it is capable of "mediating" or supporting any higher forms of consciousness than that.

Hilston asked:
Why do you believe the teachings of the Dzogchen tradition to be true?

You wrote that "there are in fact quite a number of teachings that give a glimpse of what 'lies beyond.'" Why do you believe that these teachings are true?

Why do you believe Siddhartha was right?

There are a number of reasons. I find his teachings to be both practical and profound, answering the questions of "why" and "wherefore" more fully and satisfactorily than other bodies of teachings that I've come across. I have also put his teachings into practice on a daily basis and have found them to be very reliable, wise, and profound. Since Siddhartha's teachings deal primarily with direct experience, in meditation and outside of it, they are largely open to practical verification.

Hilston asked:
Is your belief in the verity and righteousness of Dzogchen tradition and Siddhartha's teachings based on the existence of the "humanly inexplicable gift of faith" or the object of that faith, i.e. that which you believe in. In other words, in what or who have you placed your faith?

I have placed my faith both in the transmitters of these teachings and the truth to which they point.

Balder wrote:
We do seem to be a bit astray from the theme of this thread, but hopefully not so far astray that we can't get back on track.

Hilston replied:
I agree, and that's partly my fault. I was genuinely interested (before I knew what I was getting into) in what you believed. Now, I'm not convinced that there is any need whatever to understand it. In fact, it seems deliberately obtuse, and you seem to be wholeheartedly swept away by its ambiguities. Your view seems to preclude any true desire or goal to understand with clarity, or to impart clear understanding to others.

I'm sorry you feel this way. As I said in the last letter, I agree that posting so many terminology-thick passages by Guenther was probably a mistake, for a number of reasons. Even though the contents of those passages were relevant, they are certainly too specialized to be accessible to most. If I may respectfully submit, however, I believe that many of the "ambiguities" that you see in what I've communicated so far are probably due to your own unfamiliarity with these teachings. I would be similarly disoriented by a conversation which employed terms like Acts 9 dispensationalism, post-trib, etc, and while it would seem muddy and unnecessarily complicated to me, I'm sure it would convey quite meaningful distinctions to you.

To help move things along on a track that hopefully will be more agreeable to you, if my answers to your questions in this letter leave you confused, I will state the outlines of my general (Dzogchen/Buddhist) beliefs in brief in a subsequent post if you would like me to do so.

Hilston asked:
Do you believe in the permanence of the soul, Balder? Or do you hold to the doctrine of anatta? Is a yes or no answer possible? Or is that going require another prolix treatise, complete with Tibetan transliterations and hyphenated character strings?

I do hold to the doctrine of anatta, or non-self. The meaning of this is that individual beings are contingent beings; they are not self-existent, but rather are completely dependent upon all other aspects of reality for their existence. What you call Hilston -- your memories, your habits, your dispositions, your physical condition, etc, etc -- are all contingent and as such are subject to change. In this sense, Hilston is not "permanent," nor self-existent. In other words, you are not the cause of your own existence; you are not a self-existent monad, completely sufficient unto yourself. This is the meaning of anatta. It points to the radical interdependence of all phenomenal existents, including people.

I answered "both" to your question, however, because while individual beings are largely contingent "products" of their karma (the conditioning factors of samsara), every sentient being is capable of realizing buddhahood, in which case the individual, in realizing union with the Dharmakaya (the formless body of the Buddha, Mind-as-Such), is capable of existing forever in Sambhogakaya (light body) and Nirmanakaya (material form body) manifestations, depending on the intentions and purposes of the enlightened being.

Hilston wrote:
There are plenty of Biblical data to affirm the first Law of Thermo',
and myriad other recent scientific discoveries. There are plenty of data to show that the Biblical worldview and the ancients had vastly superior knowledge of science, mathematics, nature, etc. But I don't wave these things as proud trophies because it's not a biblical way to approach the matter.

I'd be interested to hear examples of Biblical data that you believe confirm recent scientific discoveries. In the last letter to you, I mentioned the mythical cosmology that is apparent as the background of many Biblical passages, so I'm sure you'll be dealing with that as well, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Balder: How do you understand Christian doctrine to have
resolved the problem of unity and multiplicity? Is it just that the Bible teaches that God is both Three and One, and you believe it without necessarily understanding it?

Hilston: Yes.

Balder: Or do you have an intellectual understanding or a sense for how something could be both single and multiple?

Hilston: Neither.

Not to be too picky, but I suppose you have to acknowledge that Christianity doesn't really "solve" the problem of unity and multiplicity, it just postpones it by making it an inexplicable aspect of ultimate reality instead of an inexplicable aspect of everyday reality.

Honestly, I'm interested in these topics both from a Buddhist and a Christian perspective. It might be enjoyable to talk about the Trinity, the Trikaya, and the relationships of these realities to the manifest world, but I believe the purpose of this discussion is actually to debate the merits of presuppositionalism and to test its claim that all other worldviews are incoherent or self-refuting, so unless we can tie such a discussion into those overriding concerns, I'm afraid it would just be a digression...even though I brought the topic up and enjoy talking about it!

In a book titled Buddhism: The Light of Asia, by Kenneth K.S. Ch'en, the author quotes: "Not to commit any sin, to do good, to purify one's own mind, that is the teaching of the Buddha." He goes on to define sin as "any act that is harmful to oneself or to another." Do you agree with these statements? If so, why is it your desire to eschew sin and to do good and to purify your mind?

Yes, the Buddha does teach these things. Buddhism doesn’t have an exact word for sin, however; the word used is akusala, which means unwholesome or unskillful. There are many reasons to avoid sin, to do good, and to purify the mind. One purifies the mind because that allows you to perceive reality more clearly, both on the relative level, where you gain insight into the nature and causes of suffering and evil, and on an absolute level where you gain insight into the true nature of reality, the pure Dharmakaya. Because all things are interdependent (pratitya-samutpada), and because as contingent beings we are continually being influenced and shaped by the nature of our thoughts, feelings, reactions, and interactions (karma), and because the pristine light of buddhanature that is in us is also in all beings, we desire to do good and to avoid evil out of wise recognition of the genesis of our own suffering and confusion, and out of compassion for others. The Buddha teaches that when we awaken to the depths of the truth of our mutuality, we are also awakened to our responsibility. The bodhisattva is one who dedicates himself to working for the welfare of others because of this insight into the true nature of things. There is more to say on this, of course, but I am keeping things short and to the point for the time being. Certainly all of these points could be fleshed out, in themselves, but also in their interrelationship with each other. If necessary, I’ll be happy to explain anything that isn’t clear – or to answer any charge of incoherence you may muster!

Peace,
Balder

 

[Soulman]

Clete, Hilston, et al, pardon my butting in. Like Balder, not a Christian, unlike Balder, grumpy former Christian Reconstructionist. Currently a subjectivist sun worshipper. Espoused presup views for many years, not with the eloquence or understanding of Hilston, but faithfully towed party line. By the way, Clete, regret belligerent attitude and crack about doodling online, uncalled for, won’t happen again. Thought you did a good job, actually. Having read this thread, seems as if you were “practicing” on Prodigal, scored points on “hits” if not on “technique”? Slippery business…

Maybe I missed something, but why is it necessary to “presuppose” that the universe is “logical” or “coherent”? Maybe the universe is “illogical” and “incoherent.” Seems to fit the facts. In a naturalistic universe, the drive by shooting of an innocent child is a drive by shooting. Nothing more, nothing less. Theological explanations are unnecessary. In what way is a “naturalistic” explanation “logically incoherent” with the facts? Was being gunned down God’s “plan” for her life? How is “God allowed it” or “God decreed it” a better or more “logically cohesive” (or comforting, for that matter) explanation than “things happen”?

 

[Chileice]

Originally posted by Soulman

Clete, Hilston, et al, pardon my butting in. Like Balder, not a Christian, unlike Balder, grumpy former Christian Reconstructionist. Currently a subjectivist sun worshipper. Espoused presup views for many years, not with the eloquence or understanding of Hilston, but faithfully towed party line. By the way, Clete, regret belligerent attitude and crack about doodling online, uncalled for, won’t happen again. Thought you did a good job, actually. Having read this thread, seems as if you were “practicing” on Prodigal, scored points on “hits” if not on “technique”? Slippery business…

Maybe I missed something, but why is it necessary to “presuppose” that the universe is “logical” or “coherent”? Maybe the universe is “illogical” and “incoherent.” Seems to fit the facts. In a naturalistic universe, the drive by shooting of an innocent child is a drive by shooting. Nothing more, nothing less. Theological explanations are unnecessary. In what way is a “naturalistic” explanation “logically incoherent” with the facts? Was being gunned down God’s “plan” for her life? How is “God allowed it” or “God decreed it” a better or more “logically cohesive” (or comforting, for that matter) explanation than “things happen”?

Entropy and order co-exist, that is what really makes it more strange. If it were all random, then I would agree with you. But there is also an inherent order that seems to transcend the obvious randomness we find. The Uncertainty Principle formulated by Werner Weisenberg in the area of quantum mechanics has a bit of an application in the theological world as well.

The more definite we are about measuring one aspect of God, the more imprecise we will be in measuring another. The more we try to focus on the preciseness of his judgement, the more unfocused and less able to measure the expanse of his love we become. The more we focus on measuring his logic/rationalness, the less able we are to see his transcendence. There is some kind of unseen equilibrium that we will never be able to measure because we cannot measure God in a closed environment and while we were measuring the individual parts we would be losing the integrated whole.

Stuff happens... but so do blessings. Evil stuff we can't explain happens, yet the world refuses to cycle down into complete randomness. Borrowing a bit from atmospheric science, human nature would seem to dictate that the natural state of mankind would be complete chaos. Yet, there is some unseen force giving moral energy to the system allowing it not to rest at absolute zero. Like the earth we are absorbing that "energy" and are not like some cold rock in distant space shivering near absolute zero.

I know this argument may seem a bit esoteric, but I think it shows how both views have a point. There are random unexplainable events which seem to negate aworld of total logic. Yet there are many events that defy the minimun energy, maximum entropy axiom. Blessings exist... out of the blue... beyond logic. Yet, there is also an order, but one I think we will never fully be able to coprehend due to the Uncertainty Principle of Theology (I just borrowed it from quantum mechanics, but hey... I'll take credit:chuckle: ).

God will not be held hostage to Hilston's Laws of logic. Neither will he be held to Soulman's Totally Random World Theory. I think he corresponds to the Law of Dynamic Divinity which cannot be totally measured due to the Uncertainty Principle of Theology.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Soulman

Clete, Hilston, et al, pardon my butting in. Like Balder, not a Christian, unlike Balder, grumpy former Christian Reconstructionist. Currently a subjectivist sun worshipper. Espoused presup views for many years, not with the eloquence or understanding of Hilston, but faithfully towed party line. By the way, Clete, regret belligerent attitude and crack about doodling online, uncalled for, won’t happen again. Thought you did a good job, actually. Having read this thread, seems as if you were “practicing” on Prodigal, scored points on “hits” if not on “technique”? Slippery business…

You're absolutely right, I was practicing on prodigal and my "technique" was bad enough at the outset that if prodigal had been a better debater he'd have had me beaten inside of 100 posts. I think I (actually not me, but Jim) pulled it out pretty nicely though. And I feel it important to point out that while it is true that I am new to this presuppositional or "worldview" apologetic and that I was indeed practicing on prodigal, I do understand the argument well enough to believe that it is a valid and compelling argument or else I would never have conducted such an experiment in the first place.
And don't give the "doodling online" comment another thought. I appreciate your apology and happily forgive you. :thumb:

Maybe I missed something, but why is it necessary to “presuppose” that the universe is “logical” or “coherent”? Maybe the universe is “illogical” and “incoherent.” Seems to fit the facts. In a naturalistic universe, the drive by shooting of an innocent child is a drive by shooting. Nothing more, nothing less. Theological explanations are unnecessary. In what way is a “naturalistic” explanation “logically incoherent” with the facts? Was being gunned down God’s “plan” for her life? How is “God allowed it” or “God decreed it” a better or more “logically cohesive” (or comforting, for that matter) explanation than “things happen”?

Okay, you realize that you've laid claim to a worldview that is intentionally incoherent, right? If the universe is "illogical" and "incoherent", how can you be reading this right now? How would you have known how to formulate the question? How would you have ever formed language skills in the first place?
Can you balance your checkbook? I bet you can! How? How is that possible in a universe that is fundamentally illogical? Numbers and mathematics are nothing but a form of logic. Scientists (even atheistic ones) use mathematics to such an extent that indeed mathematics is the very language of science. How could that be if what you are suggesting is even close to being true?


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Soulman]

Chileice, seems that introducing a deity to explain "drive by shootings" or why "bad" things happen to "good" people or why "good" things happen to "bad" people only complicates matters. Living in a random universe where "stuff happens" would be bad enough; now we have to explain why God would decree or allow the murder of an innocent child.

Granted, the murder of an innocent child COULD be interpreted as the result of a "Dynamic Divinity," but a "Random World" theory "fits the facts" without the additional complication of “faith-based” explanations. Why did God do it? Why did God allow it to happen? Agonizing questions, even for the true believer -- and an unnecessary “complication” if the universe is random and there is no God.

 

[Chileice]

Originally posted by Soulman

Chileice, seems that introducing a deity to explain "drive by shootings" or why "bad" things happen to "good" people or why "good" things happen to "bad" people only complicates matters. Living in a random universe where "stuff happens" would be bad enough; now we have to explain why God would decree or allow the murder of an innocent child.

Granted, the murder of an innocent child COULD be interpreted as the result of a "Dynamic Divinity," but a "Random World" theory "fits the facts" without the additional complication of “faith-based” explanations. Why did God do it? Why did God allow it to happen? Agonizing questions, even for the true believer -- and an unnecessary “complication” if the universe is random and there is no God.

The problem with your theory is, that while it explains evil, it does nothing to explain good. There is no explanation for non-rational altruism, love, emotions and actions that defy the maximum entropy law. I think your random universe theory would be hard-pressed to explain the good away.

 

[Balder]

Soulman,

I am not signing on to defend Christian Presuppositionalism, but I did want to say that embracing a view of complete randomness -- while an understandable reaction to disillusionment with a particular view that pretends to have things "all sewn up" -- is the far end of a pendulum swing, and too extreme in my opinion. You would not even be able to conceive of "randomness" and disorder if you did not also perceive order in the world. People often talk about entropy, using it as proof of the ultimate disorder and randomness of the universe, but they neglect self-organization, autopoesis. Ilya Prigogine's work on dissipative structures and self-organizing systems shows beyond doubt the principles of self-organization at work, even in the inanimate world.

Peace,
Balder

 

[Clete]

While I appreciate the point Chileice makes, I would suggest that it explains neither good nor evil. Good and evil both presuppose a standard that would not exist without there being a God. In a "random" universe, morallity could not exist. Neither could the concept of order or randomness for that matter. It is incoherent on its face, especially if one attempts to explain the problem of evil by employing it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Soulman]

Clete,

Okay, you realize that you've laid claim to a worldview that is intentionally incoherent, right?

Correct.

If the universe is "illogical" and "incoherent", how can you be reading this right now? How would you have known how to formulate the question? How would you have ever formed language skills in the first place?...

Or tie my shoes, or know my shoes belong on my feet and not on my head. Gotcha.

Convention. Trial and error. Culture. Evolution. Habit. What you attribute to a supernatural “logical coherency” may simply be the brain’s attempt to create order out of chaos. Four follows three because (in this universe, anyway) that’s what “happens” when you add a “one” to a “three.” Perhaps you are reading “logical coherency” into a universe operating on a purely “mechanical” level. Gravity exists, and gravity must be “obeyed.” But is gravity “logical”? I think the word “logical” is misleading. I would be interested to know how a physicist would answer that question. Is matter following “rules of logic” laid out in advance? Or is matter simply being true to its own “nature”?

You are assuming a teleological (believe that's the right term) “motive” to the universe, and arguing from there. Remove the “motive” (defending the biblical worldview, asserting the crown rights of Jesus) and “supernatural” solutions become unnecessary.