Human reason

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Yes. The Christian world view (CWV) means the axioms of Christianity and their logical conclusions (inferences). Using the axioms of Christianity, and correctly applying logic, one can explain all the fundamental questions about "the meaning of life."

I asked you this in another thread, but you may have missed it (easy to get lost in the labyrint ...[text shortened]... ally following C.S. Lewis here, from Mere Christianity or The Problem of Pain?

[/b]

I should first say that I am not speaking for all Christians when I say what I think are the essential axioms of Christianity. I am in the minority when it comes to some of the details of Christianity.

The first axiom of Christianity is that the Bible alone is inerrant word of God. Inerrancy (or infallibility) is a heavily debated topic among Christians but basically I mean to say the Bible contains the knowledge of God and from God to man regarding all things necessary for salvation, living for God, and loving each other.

From the Bible I derive the rest of the Christian worldview - epistemology, soteriology, metaphysics, and all those other $10 words that are basic to a comprehensive worldview. I think that the Bible is the Word of God is really the only axiom needed. You could call me a Scripturalist.

The basic laws of logic may also be considered axiomatic but I think they can also be derived from Scripture implicitly. The Bible does not explicitly gives the "Law of Non-contradiction" but that the use of language and abstract reasoning makes the Law of Non-contradiction implicitly required for rational thought and reasoning. I also concede that the laws of logic are implicit even without the Bible which is why I say that non-Christians are right to hold them as axiomatic.

And, since as axioms they are not derivable from the CWV “system” itself, do you consider them to be 1) empirically derived, 2) self-evident, 3) neither, but reasonably assumable for purposes of the system itself (and, of course, not leading to contradictions within the system), or 4) something I’m not thinking of.


One of the premises of the CWV is that all knowledge comes from God. The CWV axiom "Bible alone is the Word of God" is knowledge that comes from God. I know this because God made it known to me. So in a sense it is "self evident" because God himself testifies to the truth of it. One could also say it is assumable for the purposes of the belief system itself. It is tautologically true - the Bible says it is the Word of God, and the Bible is God speaking. So you could classify my view as Presuppositionalism.

The reason why articulation of the axioms is important is that, as I think someone else pointed out, internal consistency is, while necessary, not sufficient of itself to adopt a worldview.

I agree. But a worldview should encompass the whole of reality - so internal consistency should be a strong argument for a adopting a worldview. External coherence is also very important but harder to define.

NOTE: Re your natural law reference above, are you generally following C.S. Lewis here, from Mere Christianity or The Problem of Pain?

Although I enjoyed the writing of C.S. Lewis, I am more in line with Gordon Clark, Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, John Robbins, and (recently) Vincent Cheung.

See this article on Presuppositionalism from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]"religious" world views fall short at some point...believing in a god that is unknowable.

all supernatural beings are unknowable due to the fact that they are supernatural. the christian god is no different in this respect. if you profess that your world view is correct, how are you not professing to know that which is unknowable?[/b]

I disagree with your premise that a supernatural being is unknowable. But I believe a supernatural being is only knowable if the supernatural being makes itself known. In other words, man can not know God by his own efforts, God must make himself know by some means of revelation.

In contrast if one adopts a strictly empirical view of knowledge, the natural world is not necessarily knowable. What we think we know by empirical means is only a probability. There is no empirical knowledge in any absolute sense of the term knowledge - there is only possible knowledge. And so empiricism naturally leads one to skepticism.

Originally posted by Coletti
I disagree that a supernatural being is unknowable. I believe a supernatural being is only knowable if God makes him- or herself known by some means of revelation.

And has she made herself known?

On what basis do you favor one advertised revelation over another contradictory one?

Originally posted by Wulebgr
And has she made herself known?

On what basis do you favor one advertised revelation over another contradictory one?

Yes he has. And I go with the non-contradictory God of the Bible because he has made himself known.

Originally posted by Coletti
I disagree with your premise that a supernatural being is unknowable. But I believe a supernatural being is only knowable if the supernatural being makes itself known. In other words, man can not know God by his own efforts, God must make himself know by some means of revelation.

In contrast if one adopts a strictly empirical view of knowledge, the natu ...[text shortened]... ledge - there is only possible knowledge. And so empiricism naturally leads one to skepticism.

What is a "strictly empirical view of knowledge"?

Originally posted by bbarr
What is a "strictly empirical view of knowledge"?

What is a "strictly empirical view of knowledge"?

- that knowledge comes only from the physical senses - that the mind is a blank slate at birth - and it is the experiencing of physical sensations (sight, smell, touch, sound) that somehow leads to knowledge.

Originally posted by Coletti
[b]What is a "strictly empirical view of knowledge"?

- that knowledge comes only from the physical senses - that the mind is a blank slate at birth - and it is the experiencing of physical sensations (sight, smell, touch, sound) that somehow leads to knowledge.[/b]

Wow, what a crazy view. That certainly isn't what most epistemologists who categorize themselves as empiricists believe.

Originally posted by Coletti
I should first say that I am not speaking for all Christians when I say what I think are the essential axioms of Christianity. I am in the minority when it comes to some of the details of Christianity.

The first axiom of Christianity is that the Bible alone is inerrant word of God. Inerrancy (or infallibility) is a heavily debated topic among Christians ...[text shortened]... resuppositionalism from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics

Thanks--as I promised. 😉 You've given me some work to do....

Originally posted by Coletti
I disagree with your premise that a supernatural being is unknowable. But I believe a supernatural being is only knowable if the supernatural being makes itself known. In other words, man can not know God by his own efforts, God must make himself know by some means of revelation.

In contrast if one adopts a strictly empirical view of knowledge, the natu ...[text shortened]... ledge - there is only possible knowledge. And so empiricism naturally leads one to skepticism.

But I believe a supernatural being is only knowable if the supernatural being makes itself known.

man's intellect cannot process the supernatural. therefore, if something is made 'known' to you, then that something consists of the natural, not the supernatural. thus, any coherent revelation from a supernatural being comes packaged to you in wholly natural form. if all you have to go on is the natural, then how are you justified in asserting that it comes from a supernatural being? in other words, what you may perceive to be a revelation from god may simply be some man-written words in a man-made book; or that feeling in your gut of revelation from god may simply be a bad case of gas.

man can not know God by his own efforts, God must make himself know by some means of revelation.

this is one reason why i sincerely hope your world view is wrong. if god is omniscient; and if revelation from god is necessary for being saved; and if such revelation is nothing more than a gift handed out at god's sole discretion; then it follows that god knows in advance the fate of each person, and that each person who suffers everlasting torment in hell does so by god's will alone. thus your god is callous and not all that likeable. doesn't this cause some inconsistencies within your world view, given that your world view also holds that god is love and that god values life and that god loves each and every one of us? furthermore, don't you think it would be prudent to question such a god's motives?

In contrast if one adopts a strictly empirical view of knowledge, the natural world is not necessarily knowable. What we think we know by empirical means is only a probability. There is no empirical knowledge in any absolute sense of the term knowledge - there is only possible knowledge. And so empiricism naturally leads one to skepticism.

i'm not sure if any of this is true; i have to think more about what you are saying. but if absolute knowledge of the natural world is beyond man's reach, then trying to gain absolute knowledge about the supernatural is truly a waste of time; and trying to gain absolute knowledge about the natural world through special supernatural goggles isn't going to work either.

Originally posted by LemonJello
this is one reason why i sincerely hope your world view is wrong. if god is omniscient; and if revelation from god is necessary for being saved; and if such revelation is nothing more than a gift handed out at god's sole discretion; then it follows that god knows in advance the fate of each person, and that each person who suffers everlasting torment in hell does so by god's will alone. thus your god is callous and not all that likeable.

The gift of God, which is eternal life is made available to everybody who would accept it.

By accepting this gift, you recieve the Holy Spirit, that begins to reveal God to you.

God is a God of love. He does not will that anybody should perish, by he is also a Holy God, and therefore sin has to be punished. The only people who go to hell are those who have rejected God's grace.

Originally posted by Halitose
The gift of God, which is eternal life is made available to everybody who would accept it.

By accepting this gift, you recieve the Holy Spirit, that begins to reveal God to you.

God is a God of love. He does not will that anybody should perish, by he is also a Holy God, and therefore sin has to be punished. The only people who go to hell are those who have rejected God's grace.

yes, i realize that this is what you are programmed to believe without evidence, but have you ever actually asked yourself if it makes any sense? assuming god's existence, have you ever asked yourself if god even deserves your praise and worship? is god justified in sentencing someone to eternal torture? if so, please explain why.

what would eternal life with god entail anyway? sitting in a circle holding hands, singing songs, batting eyes at each other? sounds more boring than bingo night at the VFW. in that case, it sounds like you're in it for the eternal haul either way (whether you accept or do not accept god) and they both sound like torture.

have you ever thought that maybe possibly man's belief in god stems from his own self interest and the need to entertain egoism with hope of eternal reward? that eternal reward business sure does make the medicine go down more easily.

Originally posted by LemonJello

yes, i realize that this is what you are programmed to believe without evidence

I am afaid we have evidence. (Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.)

but have you ever actually asked yourself if it makes any sense?

I understand that it will not make much sense if a person is blinded by sin.

assuming god's existence, have you ever asked yourself if god even deserves your praise and worship?

Go figure. Once you have received such a great gift of salvation it comes automatically.

is god justified in sentencing someone to eternal torture? if so, please explain why.

Sure. Anyone who refuses to receive such a great gift of salvation sure deserves it. Remember God is a God of mercy and love. Now is the time of salvation. If you refuse to accept it now the time will run out. God is also a Holy God. He cannot stand sin. That is why we shall be judged and punnished for sin, if we refuse to turn away from it. But ultimately its still up to the individual.

what would eternal life with god entail anyway?

Something more spectacular than the human mind can ever imagine. If you want just a glimpse you can read the book of Revelation, I would also recommend that you read 'Visions of Heaven and Hell', written by John Bunyan.

have you ever thought that maybe possibly man's belief in god stems from his own self interest and the need to entertain egoism with hope of eternal reward? that eternal reward business sure does make the medicine go down more easily.

Mans belief in God stems from Revelation. God promises in His word that he that seeks Him with all his heart shall find Him. If you don't wan't to believe in God in the first place you won't find Him. You won't find Him for the same reason that a criminal doesn't run into a policeman.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]yes, i realize that this is what you are programmed to believe without evidence

I am afaid we have evidence. (Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.)

but have you ever actually asked yourself if it makes any sense?

I understand that it will not make much sense if a person is bli ...[text shortened]... . You won't find Him for the same reason that a criminal doesn't run into a policeman.



[/b]

Quite revealing post: almost deserves a rec.

The main point is clear: the capacity for human reason is subordinate to faith, which provides all of the necessary evidence. If you know not Jesus, you will fail to understand, so REPENT and llearn to reason.

He drivels from one corner, then the other.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Quite revealing post: almost deserves a rec.

The main point is clear: the capacity for human reason is subordinate to faith, which provides all of the necessary evidence. If you know not Jesus, you will fail to understand, so REPENT and llearn to reason.

He drivels from one corner, then the other.

I there anything that you believe in without actually putting your faith in it?

Originally posted by dj2becker
I there anything that you believe in without actually putting your faith in it?

the way you use the word faith applies to none of my beliefs