Presuppositions And The Body
I heard the following from Pastor Steve Schlissel...very good stuff. [He spoke this at a conference in the Southern United States [thus the squirrel comment].
Presuppositions are very important...they determine “what” facts and “how” facts will be entertained by us. Presuppositions function like preferences or tastes, just as you never go near certain foods [like squirrel] regardless of how well they might be prepared, so presuppositional biases can steer us away from certain approaches or certain truths. We can actually find ourselves filtering them out as we read the bible, we don’t see them because they do not conform to our presuppositions.
Presuppositions can function like;
Teeth and a Mouth• All potential nourishment must first pass through our presuppositions to be made fit for our personal consumption.
Digestive System
• In which a nearly miraculous function occurs out of sight, detecting, sorting, cataloguing while you go about your business.
Tush or Rear End, or Buttock
• Presuppositions are behind and under everything we do.
• We do our life long best to keep them hidden and protected.
• Furthermore you never talk about them in company...or almost never.
• But sometimes we must talk about them, even in polite company because they do effect what we think, and what we believe, and how we act.
posted by Dale Callahan at 6:12 AM
9 Comments:
Does Pastor Steve show how the presuppositions he uses to "interpret" the Bible are used in his daily life and interactions with other people and the material world? I doubt it.
Does Pastor Steve explain that he is trying to inculcate presuppositional biases in the minds of his hearers? That he wants them to use such biases to steer them away from certain truths?
Sounds like most of Pastor Steve's presuppositions are coming out of his Tush.
Of course the Christian is going to be trying to win people over to his presuppositions...its called evangelism.
Why don't you ask Pastor Steve to explain how his beliefs are the precondition of intelligibility...I am pretty sure he would take you to the Bible and show you.
I read your blog the other day...the part about putting certain standards on comments being left...it has given me a thought or two.
In logic a precondition is a condition that has to be met, before a main argument can have any value. Intelligibility means clearness, explicitness, lucidity, comprehensibility, perspicuity, legibility, plain speaking, manifestation, precision. a word to the wise. (Wikipedia on both counts)
So one cannot be clear, lucid, or comprehensible unless one beliefs as you and Pastor Steve do? So what is the precondition for that argument or for your belief system? I would submit that the precondition there is a rejection of reality, logic, and use of factual evidence and a reliance on misguided, ill-informed misinterpretations of ancient texts.
Yes, I drew the line at blind personal attacks. I am not attacking you personally, I am attacking your belief system which is the main thrust of your blog apparently. You are trying to win people over to your presuppositions - in spite of the fact that there is no rational basis for them. I am merely trying to insure that your readership gets some balance. You should thank me.
It is amazing that you and I have be debating for months and yet you still don't get my argument.
The Transcendental Argument is that "if" unbelievers were consistent with their "proclaimed" beliefs then they wouldn't be lucid, clear or comprehensible.
But unbelievers aren't consistent with their "professed" beliefs...they live by their surpressed beliefs...they know the God who made them but they don't want to bow the knee to Him.
You have shown the strength of the Christian argument...you use logic, science and have morals and yet you have a worldview that cannot support or justify these...when challenged with this fact you become like many fundamentalists...going on blind faith and tradition [we have always done it this way].
I have to admit DL I do enjoy you coming on my blog...most of the time when I write a certain post I know when I see "1 Comment" that it is very likely you.
Huh? "The Transcendental Argument is that "if" unbelievers were consistent with their "proclaimed" beliefs then they wouldn't be lucid, clear or comprehensible." When exactly would unbelievers be lucid, clear or comprehensible? When they are inconsistent? That's a pretty ridiculous argument don't you think?
If anyone you met up with acted one way in the morning and an entirely different way in the afternoon, would you find that lucid, clear and comprehensible? No, you would think the person needed help. Perhaps that's the fallacy.
If an unbeliever were lucid, clear and comprehensible then you would have to admit that your viewpoints are irrational. Since that means you lose the argument, you take the position that if the unbeliever argues well, he isn't being lucid and clear. Got a mirror handy, Dale?
As for my reliance on logic and science, I thus follow the path that has led Western man to ascendancy and brought countless gifts to the world. You take the position that logic and science are faulty, or rest on illogical and unscientific principles. That's not an unusual position. It is held by the mullahs of Iran, and was primarily responsible for the lack of progress in Europe during the Dark Ages. Your point of view has nothing to recommend it. Mine has stood the test of time and still bears fruit for humankind.
The very essence of science and logic is that it does not accept anything on blind faith or tradition. I know you can't accept that, but do you really understand why you can't?
If a man professed to hold to a random chance universe, one that is material only, no absolutes, no universals, no assurance of tomorrow...
... and yet lived "as if" there were "concepts", universals or categories [that cannot be observed, not material]...spoke "as if" there were absolutes...acted "as if" tomorrow was going to be like the past...
then that man is not living consistently with his proclaimed worldview.
If he really spent some time thinking about it...instead of assuming his view and then trying to tear apart his opponent...he would realize that without universals and absolutes he couldn't speak or think...
But the unbeliever does speak and think and act...because he really doesn't believe his own story...he lives according to another story...one he hides deep down in his heart.
You look at history and see what you want to see. You look at thousands of years of mankind...and conclude that all the advancements of history were from unbelief...what a summary of history.
What you haven't disproven is my point...that even when unbelieving nations did do stuff that they weren't doing exactly what you are doing now...using God's world and yet refusing to give God thanks.
First of all, I haven't yet spoken about a "random chance universe", so you're jumping the gun there.
However, if one assumes that "tomorrow was going to be like the past" then they are clearly making a very safe assumption based on scientific evidence. Such a claim does not require a universal absolute. For the believer or the unbeliever, there is always a chance that tomorrow will not exist for them at all. That is part of life and also has good evidentiary support and requires no universal absolutes.
The conjecture that the unbeliever acts out of a story different from that he espouses is just that - conjecture. I could just as easily suggest that believers do the same. While you believe that God can and does suspend natural law whenever he sees fit, you don't act that way at all. You live your lives believing that tomorrow will be like yesterday. You may pray/wish that things would be different, and like everyone else, sometime your wish/prayer comes true and sometimes it doesn't.
As for my view of history, I think it is profoundly clear that when a civilization is enthrall to a strong belief in a supernatural God who sits in judgment over them, they accomplish very little in the way of scientific advancement. When they throw away that concept, their achievements burst forth in abundance. If you disagree, on what basis do you disagree?
This is obviously why all the great leaps in science and technology in our world have come from places like India and Bangladesh, right, DL? Speaking of great leaps...
These things grew in the west, where the gospel of Christ has permeated so deeply that even men who hate Christ assume the truth of his gospel. They can't even argue against it without assuming it.
Nice try Jamie.
I was referring only to Western civilization, there are too many other variables when it comes to Bangladesh for example.
The point I am trying to make is that when people believe in the supernatural absolutist ideas about God, they don't make scientific progress. You want to suggest that those who don't believe actually assume the "truth of the Gospel" and thus the progress is attributable to the Gospel.
There are a number of problems with this approach. 1) There is no real agreement among Western civilization about what the "truth of the Gospel" is or what the phrase means. 2) There is nothing in the Gospels (meaning the first 4 books of the NT) that has any clear bearing on the scientific method (that is the demand for evidence and rational thought). Some people interpret some passages in that way and others do not. 3) The greatest achievements of Western civilization occurred either before the Gospels had been written or after the Enlightment rejected the supernatural aspects of the religion.
Post a Comment
<< Home