Alvin Plantinga’s new book on Science and Religion is out.

[shunyadragon]

I see universal theism as countered by universal doubt, so in that way it's not a strong apologia for theism. As it relates to ID, which is the whole point of this discussion, it is entirely irrelevant and muddles the issue of epistemology. This is why Plantinga's suggestion about what should be done about it is apparently too convoluted to express. Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see it expressed so I can take it on. I suspect it's some form of naturalistic epistemology, which is pretty easy to refute.

I didn't see your posts that you expected me to respond to. Please point me to them and I will.

I do not know of any of the denominations of Christianity that in reality teach universal theism. Christianity teaches a very selective theism where revelation is only in relation to Christianity and Judaism.Universal theism would best describe the belief that revelation is universal with humanity throughout human history.

As far as I know the Baha'i Faith is the only belief system that teaches universal theism. The possible other beliefs that be interpreted as possibly teaching a form of universal theism is Hinduism and theistic Buddhism.

So far you have not addressed the argument of universal theism from the Baha'i perspective.

[Whag]

I do not know of any of the denominations of Christianity that in reality teach universal theism. Christianity teaches a very selective theism where revelation is only in relation to Christianity and Judaism.Universal theism would best describe the belief that revelation is universal with humanity throughout human history.

As far as I know the Baha'i Faith is the only belief system that teaches universal theism. The possible other beliefs that be interpreted as possibly teaching a form of universal theism is Hinduism and theistic Buddhism.

So far you have not addressed the argument of universal theism from the Baha'i perspective.

Oh, therein lies the misunderstanding. I used "universal theism" to describe Plantinga's apologia that because human beings have always believed in a transcendent creative power, ID must therefore be regarded as important enough for discussion in the sciences:

"Christian theology and current science unite in declaring that human beings display a natural tendency to believe in God or something very much like God. According to John Calvin, God has created us with a “sensus divinitatis,” a natural tendency to form belief in God; and according to Thomas Aquinas, “To know in a general and confused way that God exists is implanted in us by nature. Of course the vast majority of people around the globe do believe in God or something much like God. This natural inclination might be misleading—just as, I suppose, my natural inclination to believe in other minds, other centers of consciousness, might be misleading—but the point is that believers in God don’t accept such belief just because it is written in a book” pg. 104.

We're talking about two different things, maybe because I used the wrong term. I reiterate my opinion that Plantinga's position is long-winded and boring.

[headheart]

I'd much prefer 'long-winded and boring' to uniformed shadow or would that be shallow boxing.

Whatever, I got to rock on.

It's been fun,
Peace-out.
headheart

[Doug Shaver]

I'm sure that ye philosophers who are used to the language and terminology should be able to zip through his book in one sitting,

Uh, no, philosophy doesn't work that way. If anything, the more you know about it, the more you're compelled to think about what you're reading while you're reading it.

[headheart]

Uh, no, philosophy doesn't work that way. If anything, the more you know about it, the more you're compelled to think about what you're reading while you're reading it.

'There are more questions than answers .... and the more I find out, the less I know'



There are more questions than answers
Pictures in my mind I will not show
There are more questions than answers
And the more I find out, the less I know
Yeh, the more I find out, the less I know

I've asked the question time and time again
Why is there so little love among men?
But what is life, how do we live?
What should we take and how much should we give?

Oh, there are more questions than answers
Pictures in my mind I will not show
There are more questions than answers
And the more I find out, the less I know
Yeh, the more I find out, the less I know

Oh, yeah
Oh, what is life, how do we live?
Oh, what should we take and how much should we give?

There are more questions than answers
They're just pictures in my mind I will not show
There are more questions than answers
And the more I find out, the less I know
Yeh, the more I find out, the less I know

========
Bye-bye, Doug and Jaecp (side-kick)
headheart

[shunyadragon]

Oh, therein lies the misunderstanding. I used "universal theism" to describe Plantinga's apologia that because human beings have always believed in a transcendent creative power, ID must therefore be regarded as important enough for discussion in the sciences:

OK, being specific helps. Yes, Plantinga's assertion of universal theism has problems, because in reality it is false. He uses something like 'some version of God' which is to loose to be real, because in reality the Chinese Confucian/Taoism ancient world view does not come close even in the vague sense Plantinga proposes.

We're talking about two different things, maybe because I used the wrong term. I reiterate my opinion that Plantinga's position is long-winded and boring.[/QUOTE]

We're likely in more agreement here. Plantinga is long winded and boring.

[Whag]

We're likely in more agreement here. Plantinga is long winded and boring.

As is anyone who pontificates about something that isn't a problem. =)