The Ultimate Authority
The atheist asked the Christian “How do you interpret what reality is?”
The Christian replied “by the Bible”
“Why?” asked the atheist.
“Because it is the Word of God” answered the Christian.
“How do you know that it is the Word of God”? replied the atheist [sensing victory].
“Because it says it is” answered the Christian.
“HA!!” Shouted the atheist in triumph, “you can’t use the Bible to authorize the Bible, that is begging the very question at hand, it is circular reasoning”.
The Christian then asked the atheist “How do you interpret reality”?
The atheist replied “by observation and reason”?
“Why?” asked the Christian.
“Because by observation I can gather the facts and by reason I can categorize these facts, making sense out of the world around me” answered the atheist.
“What do you use to interpret your observations, and to interpret your logical conclusions” inquired the Christian?
“My mind, of course” answered the atheist.
“How do you know that your mind is a competent interpreter of reality”? asked the Christian.
“Because you can test to see if observations are valid and arguments are not contradictory” replied the atheist.
“Do you use your mind to make up these tests and then use your mind to take the final results of the test”? asked the Christian.
The atheist remained silent.
The Christian continued on “if you say that the mind is not used in creating these tests and taking the results of the test then what you are saying is that these tests are mindless and do not rest on observation or reason. But if you say that the mind is the creator of these tests and the grader of these tests then you have the mind authorizing itself. This too is begging the very question at hand and is circular reasoning.
Isn’t it amazing how we do not judge ourselves with the same standards that we will use to judge something outside of ourselves?
Even though all reasoning is circular reasoning, all circular reasoning does not give the preconditions for intelligibility.
Only Christianity gives the reason why we can have uniformity of nature, laws of logic and laws of morality.
posted by Dale Callahan at 1:59 PM
19 Comments:
So when you know that the Bible is the Word of God, you are using your mind, are you not? Do you possess some other faculty with which to acquire and process knowledge? I thought not.
So either you are acknowledging that your position that the Bible is the authority is flawed because you used your mind to interpret its contents, or you are saying that it is impossible for humans to know anything for certain. Which is it?
Christianity does not provide laws of logic - in fact, its history is one of denying logic and embracing fantasy. Christianity does not provide particularly good laws of morality (as witness its history). As for "uniformity of nature" - when was the last time you looked outside? Not much uniform about nature is there?
In the Christian worldview the mind is not ultimate. And when you add man's fall into sin to the equation it is not adequate to figure out the things of reality...until it is regenerated by the Holy Spirit...the Author of God's Word.
The Christian is using his renewed mind...as a tool...not as ulitmate judge.
God's sovereignty is greater then my minds weakness.
The Christian world view can justify why there is something immaterial in a material world...it also explains how the material and immaterial are joined together.
The naturalists worldview can do neither.
So how is it that you know your mind is "renewed" or "regenerated"? Is it with your mind? Of course. What evidence do you have that it is "renewed"? How do you know that evidence is real? You have decided that your mind is somehow different and therefore is above other people's minds but obviously there is no way for you to have this knowledge except by using your mind in the first place.
So you are not using your mind as an ultimate judge - well, neither am I or anyone else who is halfway rational. There is no ultimate judge - other than the idea in your mind of an ultimate judge, which is primarily a construct used to deflect responsibility and accountability from yourself for your own actions.
You are not making sense again - not that it matters to you, but it is amusing. Also do tell about the immaterial and material being joined together - in your mind.
My highest authority told me that I am regenerate. God is my highest authority...not my mind.
You can say that your mind isn't the highest authority in your life...but it sure doesn't sound like it.
You have a belief system [circle] and so do I. You and I both use logic, we hold to some type of view of uniformity of nature and we have some standard of right and wrong.
You can't explain your circle...you don't even try...I know why...your circle has a dirty little secret...its stealing its foundation pad from my circle.
You want to use logic, uniformity and morality to disprove Christianity...but please oh please just let us give you your starting place without asking you to justify it.
Sorry DL, I am going to stick to my game plan.
You believe in uniformity because you go outside and see it, and yet you also, somehow, know that this uniformity exists naturally, even though you can not justify how you know the future is going to be like the past [the foundation for the uniformity of nature] with a naturalist explanation.
Oh well.
And that was quite the explanation of how in a materialistic world you can have universals, laws, concepts...things that depend on the immaterial.
I know, its a silly question to ask...silly enough that philosophers have been trying to figure it out for centuries.
But hey, DL, don't even try...ok?
It must also be understood that God created man's mind and is in control of man's mind.
Because God revealed Himself through words He has also made sure that man will be able [by His Holy Spirit] to come to a right understanding of that word.
O pullease, Dale. God told you you were regenerate? And how did you come to that conclusion? Did you see God? Did you hear God? (If so you used your senses) Did you simply come to the conclusion that God "told you" something? If so, that's using your mind.
You certainly have a convenient system in which you can deny everyone else's right to make sense because they are "stealing" from your point of view. It's a closed system and that's the whole point.
You have closed yourself off to any idea that differs from your preconceptions and so cannot actually learn anything about yourself or the world. You are trapped in a tomb of irrationality of your own making.
Why? Because you feel safe there. You can arrogantly claim to know all the answers to everything and see yourself as better than all around you. You can stop engaging with the world and merely put it down as "lost and sinful". I hope it makes you feel better, but it is a dead end.
Now DL...tell me...how open are you to learning things of a supernatural explanation?
As we have witnessed...not very.
You have naturalistic presuppositions and by these you interpret the world around you...am I wrong about this?
What ever evidence is brought to you pointing to a supernatural source for reality you simply ignore it or discount it.
I have been challenging you with an indirect argument and you simply choose to ignore the challenge. Thats pretty closed.
You call the Christian arrogant...actually God calls you proud and arrogant...a creature telling his Creator the way things are or the way they should be.
You are arguing like I have a gripe with "the senses"...again you are hearing what you want...twisting it...and then moving on to another rabbit trail.
The bible teaches that there is an antithesis between the reasoning of the unbeliever and that of the believer...that is what I am speaking about. It doesn't shock me that you think this is foolish...the bible says you will think this way...its called "doubt" or "unbelief"
[1 Cor 2:10-15].
I am not denying you your right to make sense...I am "asking" you to "justify" how you make sense...being consistent with your professed beliefs. You just don't even know where to begin do you. Your humanism is sooo engrained...you hold to it so dogmatically...and it is such a deep rooted presupposition that it is religious in nature.
What exactly is your supernatural explanation? Why should anyone accept a supernatural explanation for anything without first eliminating the possibility for any natural explanations?
I will readily admit to having a preference for rational explanations for phenomena. That's not antithetical to religious belief, only to your religious belief.
In the passage you cite, Paul is making a clear distinction between spiritual things that are spiritually discerned and those that are naturally discerned. The message he delivered on the nature of Christ he asked the Corinthians to accept on faith. He did not ask them to view all of the natural world through that spiritual method. In fact in verse 11, he specifically acknowledges that "the things of a man" are known by the spirit of man, not by the spirit of God.
As usual, you are misusing the bible to make a point.
What exactly do you want to;
1. Put natural explanations first?
2. Separate the natural and supernatural?
As I read you explanation of Paul it doesn't take long to realize who is misreading.
I actually take what Paul says in 1 Cor and compare it to what he says in his other writings, instead of taking a passage and reading into it my own beliefs.
Paul said that Jesus was God [Spirit] incarnate, Creator, sustainer of all things, and that in all things He is to have the preeminence.
How do you separate a spiritual explanation from teachings like that?
Pretty simple really. First of all, the author of Colossians is clearly reciting a creedal statement of one of the early Christian communities here. Secondly, many scholars do not consider this book to be an authentic work of Paul. For example,
"Raymond Brown (a prominent Roman Catholic New Testament scholar) provides an overview of five arguments for spuriousness: vocabulary, style, theology, the dispute with false teachers, and the characters and situation (An Introduction, pp. 610-615). Of these arguments, the strongest ones are those that maintain that Colossians shows a more developed theology in its christology, ecclesiology, and eschatology."
One cannot simply grab passages from various books in the NT and presume that they represent a single viewpoint. In fact, many scholars have demonstrated that Paul's theology developed over several decades and that early writings differ from the later ones.
In addition, as Paul clearly states, he is not preaching the gospel of Jesus. He is preaching about Jesus only as a symbol (Christ crucified, dead, buried and risen again) and only vaguely refers to the actual teachings of Jesus about God. His entire theological edifice, although impressive for its time, is not to be confused with the message of Jesus. The theology of the synoptic gospels is quite different from that of Paul.
But many scholars do accept it from Paul...and more importantly the church which is the pillar and ground of true "recognized" it...being sovereignly guided by God's all powerful hand.
Why do you go for the scholars that disclaim the Bible and I go for the ones that support it?
Oh ya...this is going back to what I have been saying all along. You and I both have presuppositions...we do not "prove" our presuppositions with evidence...we take them for granted and use them to prove everything else.
One difference your presuppositions do not make sense of reality [if consistently held], and the Christians does.
I am sure every book that Paul wrote that talked about Christ's Deity would be "cut out" of your canon.
In the very passage that we began with [1 Cor 2] Paul talks of Christ as God...take a close look.
When you say "the church which is the pillar and ground of true "recognized" it...", which church are you talking about? The church that initially decided on the canon was a church that had formed a symbiotic relationship with the Roman Empire and was obsessed with establishing its authority and protecting their tax-supported privileges from usurpation by "heretics". Their decisions were not made by careful examination of the facts. They were political decisions.
There is no question that Paul believed Jesus to be God in some fashion. As he grew older and was called upon to defend his ideas in a marketplace dominated by the complex ideas of Greek philosophy, his ideas about Jesus developed as well.
Unfortunately for Paul and for the Christian church as a whole, those ideas followed to their logical conclusions were often nonsensical. Many of the doctrinal statements and creeds of the early church were designed to stifle these arguments by putting the force of Roman law behind one side or another of the argument. Your "Triune God" fixation is a prime example of a doctrine that never made sense and was ridiculed by most believers when first proposed, but was forced upon the church and individual Christians, often by force of law.
Yes, biblical scholars disagree. I read them and weigh their arguments and either decide which is right or decide that it there isn't enough data to make a decision. Either way is fine by me. Have you read the scholars that are more skeptical? Do you just dismiss their work without examination?
I have always been open to read or study something that disagrees with my position. I have a brother with a Phd who is also a Buddhist. He send me very challenging books, that I read.
How do I judge whether a scholar is "right" as you put it. What do I judge his rightness against?
We are coming back to those ulimate presuppositions again.
I do realize that the only way that you will discard your ultimate presuppositions for Biblical ones is for you to be converted, regenerated.
And to answer your first question, Yes that is the church...there is only one church throughout history.
If you say that the church cannot infallibly recognize the cannon because the church has made mistakes I then challenge you to answer according to what universal moral standard has she made mistakes.
I noticed that I added an extra 'n' to canon...I didn't mean a big gun honestly.
You ascribe supernatural motivation, inspiration, or perhaps direction to "the church" (also presupposing some actual coherence between what constituted the Christian church 1700 years ago and what constitutes it today). That's fine, but it again uses metaphysical, spiritual methods to analyze an eminently real, human organization.
The historical record exists from which one can deduce the actual motivations of church leaders during the period in which the canon was formed. One can also find the record of the many religious variations that existed at the time and the arguments made for and against each of them.
Why would you assume that these men were acting from motivations other than those from which all other men act? On what basis would you make that claim?
You didn't say how you judge biblical scholars I noticed. But it is implied by your following statement - you judge them by whether they conform to your preconceptions. The ultimate authority you use is not God, it is the concept you have adopted about God. The ultimate authority is not the Bible, it is your particular intepretation of the Bible. You are not able to reconsider what the Bible says, because that would undermine your interpretation which in turn would undermine your ultimate authority. So ultimately, your "ultimate authority" is neither ultimate nor authoritative except as you have decided to make it so.
I just read an interesting article you may want to read and think about.
If what you say about me is true then in my 15 years as a Christian there should be no change in my beliefs...and yet this is not the case. My interpretation of the Bible has changed in many areas. I was not always a Calvinist, or was I one who held to paedo baptism, paedo communion. My view of the "end" went from premill to post mill. How did this happen I study the Bible, I listen to arguments from scholars...I weigh the Biblical evidence.
When it comes to some apostate scholar who is denying God's word...do I have to weigh out the evidence?...no! Because in the end he could slap God in the face unless he was first sitting in God's lap to do so.
There has always been covenant keeper and some covenant breakers within the Church. I am not defending the spotlessness of the Church...that will come at the end of time. I am defending the truth that God is so sovereign that He can use the Church...in all its imperfections and preserve His word in its wholeness.
God could bring salvation to world through a murder. He actually forerordained the crucifixion of His Son...and this came about by lawless hands.
"apostate scholar" pretty much sums up what I'm talking about. You dismiss the scholarship of those who disagree with you before considering their work. Thanks for making my point.
As for your "changes" since becoming Christian, they are confined to minor points of doctrine that are only of interest to those within the community. Your basic stance toward the world, toward scientific inquiry, and toward those who are outside the realm of your brand of Christianity has no doubt changed little if at all.
Lastly, you talk about God ("God is love", God the loving father) bringing "salvation" through the deliberate murder of his Son is indicative of the weakness of your theological position.
You do the same thing DL you are just blinded from seeing it.
I honestly think that you think that you are a honest truth seeking person...lol.
You give me articles that discount the New Testament from being reliable history because of the religious convictions of the writers.
You view the cross as a weakness...the Bible calls it the power of God.
The Bible says that the power of the cross will be viewed as foolishness by those who are perishing...I hope you repent.
You also missed the fact that I have been a Christian for 15 years.
Considering the fact that I am 40 years old...this means that I had a huge change in beliefs 15 years ago...or are these just little minor changes also.
Tell me, what huge changes in belief have you had? Give some examples please.
Yes, I discount the Bible as history, first of all because independent sources have demonstrated its faults in that area, and because its authors never intended to write an unbiased, accurate account of events. They intended, for the most part, to stimulate their readers to believe as they did whether in the special relationship of Jehovah to the Hebrew people, or the divine nature of Jesus.
I don't recall mentioning the cross one way or the other. For the record, I see it as neither foolishness nor the power of God. It was a sadistic act of murder carried out by the Romans on countless victims, innocent and guilty, including one Jesus from Nazareth. Any power that it has had stems from the ideas developed about it long after the event, primarily by Paul and those who wrote under his name. It was a stumbling block for generations because it was difficult for people in the Roman world to accept the divinity of a man who was executed as a common criminal.
I was raised in a fundamentalist Southern Baptist Church, so your world view is not at all foreign to me. Wrong, but not foreign.
Post a Comment
<< Home