Water Bumper Cars
I was at a water park years ago...it was great fun.
On of the rides was a water version of the bumper car.
You got into these circle shaped rubber boats, with a small motor, and would ram each other.
It was great fun. You climbed into your circle and would do battle.
Everyone who did battle, did so within their circle.
Anyone who thought they could do battle outside of a circle...was all wet.
This is true also with argumentation, everyone argues within their worldview...everyone has presuppositions...everyone interprets evidence according to their presuppositions.
Your presuppositions are not proven...they are what you prove all else by.
This is why all arguing is "in a circle".
Anyone who thinks they aren't arguing in a circle...well...they are all wet.
posted by Dale Callahan at 4:39 PM
7 Comments:
But like bumper cars, at any given time most human beings are not playing bumper cars with you. In fact, over the course of time, very few people have played bumper cars the way you play. When people go about their daily business in the world, they do not make decisions based on how they play bumper cars, they use reason, evidence, sense and experience. If they conducted their daily lives like a game of bumper cars, a lot of people would get hurt and nothing of any consequence would ever be accomplished.
Thanks for the analogy.
Your circle, or ultimate authority is reason, evidence, sense, and experience...and yet amazingly enough you can't justify any of these according to your professed worldview.
I was thinking of you when I wrote this DL because you are quick to see others argue in a circle and yet seem blind to the fact that you too are in a circle...arguing.
The transcendental argument for God's existence has the Christian step inside the unbelievers circle...yes there is a circle there that the unbeliever is arguing from [poorly at that], and to show him that if he were consistent with his ultimate beliefs then he couldn't justify his use of reason, evidence...etc.
You are demonstrating this over and over again DL...thanks for volunteering to be the test subject.
You're welcome, Dale. You know I keep trying to teach you a little something, but you're too busy on your bumper car ride.
You are trapped in the silly argument that says that one should not use reason, evidence, sense and experience to arrive at conclusions. You haven't explained how you arrive at your conclusions without them. You didn't gain any knowledge of the Bible without using your senses. You claim to "experience" God, you claim that the Bible provides all the evidence you need and that if the Bible says it that's all the reason you need.
It's not that you don't use the same tools I do, just that you are unable or afraid to apply them beyond the tight frame of your religious views. You are convinced that anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible and your worldview is just plain wrong. It's an arrogant position to take, even more so when you have utterly failed to study the Bible, settling for using it as a proof text for your preconceived ideas.
I do enjoy these little matches of wits, especially when you make such a mess of defending your indefensible positions.
How can I say this in a more clear way? I KNOW that you use reason, evidence, etc.
I am challenging you to "justify" [please note everyone the word within the quotation marks] your use of these things in a consistent way with your professing worldview. You are a smart guy...dig down deep and do a little thinkin bud.
I am not going to start playing the game of assuming your mind is neutral and really seeking truth because its not.
You do consistently hold to your rebellious stance though.
The creed of the rebel against God.
Two points.
1.We can't know anything for certain about God.
2. Christianity is certainly wrong!
Read through our battle of the wits DL, you haven't even begun to explain "why" you "use" reason, evidence, morality...EXCEPT for that scholarly argument of "thats the way it is man, just look out your window".
I can almost feel myself departing from the faith with powerful arguments like that.
Well, you are right on one point. We cannot know anything for certain about God. That's definitional. If God exists, God is beyond human knowledge. A being that can be apprehended and understood by humans is inadequate to be God.
As for Christianity, there are many flavors and not all are "wrong". I find that Christians who actually take the words of Jesus in the Gospels to heart and try to live their lives as he taught his followers to live are a boon to all of humanity. I only wish there were more such people.
Unfortunately, Christianity has been dominated by hierarchies and movements that ignore the man Jesus and his teaching and simply turn him into a symbol that can be twisted to suit their own needs. For many contemporary fundamentalist Christians, this means a preference for the vindictive God image of the ancient Hebrews over the loving Father Jesus described.
Possibly the most pernicious and destructive tendency in Christianity in the last hundred years has been the ill-conceived idea of biblical inerrancy. The very basis for this theory (that if one part of the bible is wrong, it calls all into question) springs from ignorance about the nature of the writings themselves and a fear that actual study of the book's writings and development would show the ignorance of many preachers and teachers.
No, I don't find all Christianity wrong. There are admirable Christian groups like the Catholic Worker movement that show us all how Jesus would live in the world today. There are even denominational leaders (the United Church of Christ in the US, for example) who are trying to lead their members in following Jesus in today's world.
Unfortunately, they are in the minority, but perhaps that's unavoidable. The message of Jesus was a difficult one. He called on people to change the way they live, not just believe in some concept. He called on people to engage with the world and love their fellow humans - even their enemies. Take a look at the summary of beliefs of the United Church of Canada. Do you agree with them? They seem pretty close to Jesus' ideas.
According to your agnostic view there is "one" thing that you do know about God for certain.
"That you can not know anything about Him for certain".
Then you go about using universal statements again..."thats definitional".
This the definition according to
what absolute standard? Answer please.
God doesn't seem to restrict Himself to your definition.
God created the world and clearly reveals Himself to His creation.
God has spoken His Word to His people and He makes certain that His Word will accomplish what He has planned.
I agree with those who are not fighting against God and His revealed Word.
The United Church in Canada is a liberal church that is quickly on its way to having its candlestick removed.
What standard do you judge any church by?
If you go to the gospels then I will just throw your view of Scripture back in your face.
If the Bible cannot be trusted at all points then the points that you hold to are not God's word...a very convenient argument isn't it?
Or maybe I will try another one of your arguments. Thats your interpretation of the gospels...that pretty much destroys all scholarship doesn't it. Nothing can be known...so now let's spend endless amounts of time explaining this nothing.
You sound frustrated, Dale. Let's take this a step at a time.
I'm sure you would agree that there is only one God. Of course, the Muslim and the Jew would agree with you. You say God has revealed himself to his people through his word. Well, there's where the 3 of you would part company. The Muslim believes that God is revealed through the Prophet in the Koran. The Jew through the Torah. You through the entire bible including the N.T. Which is right?
Did God choose not to reveal himself to some people? Did God choose to reveal different things about himself to different cultural groups? If so, why? What does this say about the nature of such a God? How can one choose one such relevation as authentic and others as fraudelent?
You say that "if the Bible cannot be trusted at all points then the points that you hold to are not God's word.." That presupposes that the Bible can or should be trusted. There's the point of difference. The Bible is a collection of writings about the God of the Jews, the God of Jesus and the God of the early church. It is not God, it is not an object of worship. The Bible is a guide to understanding God, not a stenographic record of God's instructions for mankind.
When I judge a church, I look for one thing: How well are they living out the teachings of Jesus in their community and in the world?
Post a Comment
<< Home