Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Against Objectivity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Against Objectivity

    I'm taking a class on Postmodernism era apologetics.

    I think this following quote offers much wisdom for Christian Apologetics:

    On the other hand, a kind of deep “directional”15pluralism is endemic to our postlapsarian (postfall) condition; that is, there is a level of interpretive difference that concerns fundamental issues such as what it means to be authentically human and how we fit into the cosmos. In this respect, for instance, Christianity and Buddhism have very different interpretations about the nature of reality. However, we need to consider these as deep differences in interpretation rather than glibly supposing that the Christian account is objectively true and then castigating the Buddhist account for being merely an interpretation. In fact, both are interpretations; neither is objectively true. And so, to a certain extent, we must also embrace this postlapsarian or directional pluralism as the given situation in which we find ourselves. To assert that our interpretation is not an interpretation but objectively true often translates into the worst kinds of imperial and colonial agendas, even within a pluralist culture. Acknowledging the interpreted status of the gospel should translate into a certain humility in our public theology. It should not, however, translate into skepticism about the truth of the Christian confession. If the interpretive status of the gospel rattles our confidence in its truth, this indicates that we remain haunted by the modern desire for objective certainty. But our confidence rests not on objectivity but rather on the convictional power of the Holy Spirit (which isn’t exactly objective); the loss of objectivity, then, does not entail a loss of kerygmatic boldness about the truth of the gospel.

    From: James Smith, Who's Afraid of Postmodernism, Baker Academic
    The author emphasizes the use of presuppositional apologetics as the fashion to bring someone into the Christian narrative needed to understand the meaning and context of Christianity.

    I know that the author's recommendation answers the question I had about the usefulness of a Modernistic reasoned approach which, at the same time, seems to push aside the relevance of faith (i.e. trust) toward God.

    What do you all think?

  • #2
    Hi Mike,

    I think Christianity is objectively true, and yet I don't subscribe to presuppositional apologetics. And reason and faith are not at odds (if I'm understanding you correctly), I have seen reason encouraging my faith.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

    Comment


    • #3
      By saying " Christianity is objectively true," do you mean that anyone who hears the argument for truth of Christianity has only one logical conclusion no matter if he or she is Atheist, Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim?

      What is the framework or foundation for being objectivity that all can agree upon? Is there a common concept of metaphysics to discuss things from?

      Are you saying there is a common framework to reason from?

      That there is only one logical conclusion that anyone should make based on existing Christian arguments?


      Just inquiring,

      Mike

      Note: I should also mention that the relevance of reason of Christians is not being thrown out. Van Til observed that 'reason' reconciles an encountered idea with the framework of one's worldview.
      Last edited by mikewhitney; 09-18-2017, 06:28 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
        I'm taking a class on Postmodernism era apologetics.

        I think this following quote offers much wisdom for Christian Apologetics:



        The author emphasizes the use of presuppositional apologetics as the fashion to bring someone into the Christian narrative needed to understand the meaning and context of Christianity.

        I know that the author's recommendation answers the question I had about the usefulness of a Modernistic reasoned approach which, at the same time, seems to push aside the relevance of faith (i.e. trust) toward God.

        What do you all think?
        I think that a degree of humility in propounding a Christian worldview is wise - that is, Christians should be aware that not necessarily all their beliefs are correct.

        However, doesn't the quote you've given fall into it's own objection? Is it objectively true that neither Christianity nor Buddhism are objectively true? If 'there is no objective truth', isn't that claim itself subjective and thus not necessarily true for everyone.

        I think the writer gives too much away and accepts the flawed post-modern worldview, rather than challenging it with the (objective) claims of Jesus Christ.
        ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

        Comment


        • #5
          Mike,

          How much have you read by or about Francis Schaeffer? As an evangelist he dealt with the fallacies of post modernism in an informal practical way. You also might find Greg koukl's book Tactics useful to explain some methods in dealing with post-modernism views.
          Last edited by 37818; 09-19-2017, 08:05 AM.
          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
            I think that a degree of humility in propounding a Christian worldview is wise - that is, Christians should be aware that not necessarily all their beliefs are correct.

            However, doesn't the quote you've given fall into it's own objection? Is it objectively true that neither Christianity nor Buddhism are objectively true? If 'there is no objective truth', isn't that claim itself subjective and thus not necessarily true for everyone.

            I think the writer gives too much away and accepts the flawed post-modern worldview, rather than challenging it with the (objective) claims of Jesus Christ.
            Lyotard had a suspicion of science based on the disregard of the shaky ground of foundation for science. Science says its conclusions are objectively found when, in fact, the premise or philosophy of science is not scientifically proven. The scientific world is guilty of not acknowledging the metanarrative or 'myth', the myth which says science is objective -- or that there "is" objective truth. Another example is the attempt by atheists, working in a materialist emphasis of science, think that they can then say "everything is explained by science and thus there is no reason to think that a god exists;" this is a denial of the limitations of the metanarrative upon which modern science operation. Lyotard was concerned about the coverup rather than the content of the metanarrative.

            I don't think Lyotard was declaring there is no truth but simply that the assumption of universally acceptable objective framework is a myth.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
              Lyotard had a suspicion of science based on the disregard of the shaky ground of foundation for science. Science says its conclusions are objectively found when, in fact, the premise or philosophy of science is not scientifically proven. The scientific world is guilty of not acknowledging the metanarrative or 'myth', the myth which says science is objective -- or that there "is" objective truth. Another example is the attempt by atheists, working in a materialist emphasis of science, think that they can then say "everything is explained by science and thus there is no reason to think that a god exists;" this is a denial of the limitations of the metanarrative upon which modern science operation. Lyotard was concerned about the coverup rather than the content of the metanarrative.

              I don't think Lyotard was declaring there is no truth but simply that the assumption of universally acceptable objective framework is a myth.
              OK, that clarifies things a lot. Thanks. I'd agree that there is often an ignorance of the underlying philosophical assumptions that science rests on. Ed Feser argues that historically, things like teleology and final causes were deliberately excluded from the scientific project - which is part of what makes science so effective (it ignores certain areas to focus intensely on others) - but also what makes the scientism of moderns foolish and ignorant. If you're interested in that angle, Feser's book The Last Superstition is a good read.
              ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                By saying " Christianity is objectively true," do you mean that anyone who hears the argument for truth of Christianity has only one logical conclusion no matter if he or she is Atheist, Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim?
                Yes, I would say so.

                What is the framework or foundation for being objectivity that all can agree upon? Is there a common concept of metaphysics to discuss things from?
                Let's say the validity of reason, the validity of evidence derived from our senses, the notion of valid historical events, and the idea of prophecy, for starters.

                Are you saying there is a common framework to reason from?
                Yes.

                That there is only one logical conclusion that anyone should make based on existing Christian arguments?
                One would hope so. At least this one would hope so.

                "... because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them." (Rom. 1:19)

                Blessings,
                Lee
                "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                  Lyotard had a suspicion of science based on the disregard of the shaky ground of foundation for science. Science says its conclusions are objectively found when, in fact, the premise or philosophy of science is not scientifically proven. The scientific world is guilty of not acknowledging the metanarrative or 'myth', the myth which says science is objective -- or that there "is" objective truth. Another example is the attempt by atheists, working in a materialist emphasis of science, think that they can then say "everything is explained by science and thus there is no reason to think that a god exists;" this is a denial of the limitations of the metanarrative upon which modern science operation. Lyotard was concerned about the coverup rather than the content of the metanarrative.

                  I don't think Lyotard was declaring there is no truth but simply that the assumption of universally acceptable objective framework is a myth.
                  I appreciate that many scientists do not worry with the philosophical issues, and just get on with the science, however I think the assumptions of science are pretty well founded. We are right now communicating on technology that is made possible by science, and that is the greatest test of it - that we can use it to reliably and predictable do so much with it.

                  Yes, science assumes a materialist world, but that assumption is backed-up by centuries of experiments. Those experiments show that those areas science has looked at can be explained within a materialist framework. That does not mean the world is entirely materialist, but given how many areas science has looked at, that does increasingly look like a reasonable position to take. It would be wrong to say that everything can be explained by science (and indeed this is why scientists are still doing science), but it is fair to conclude that there is no reason to think a god exists (which is different to thinking there is reason to think no god exists).

                  Science is not objective - no human endeavor can ever hope to be just because it is a human endeavor. But it is more objective than anything else we have. You seem to be suggesting in the above that there is no objective truth; is that right? Elsewhere you seem to be arguing against that position.
                  My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                    mw: What is the framework or foundation for being objectivity that all can agree upon? Is there a common concept of metaphysics to discuss things from?

                    Let's say ... the idea of prophecy, for starters.
                    Can you enlarge on this? I am curious how you think prophecy is in any way objective.
                    My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                      Can you enlarge on this? I am curious how you think prophecy is in any way objective.
                      When a prediction is made, that comes true, especially "forever" prophecies such as "Babylon will never be rebuilt."

                      Blessings,
                      Lee
                      "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                        One would hope so. At least this one would hope so "... because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them." (Rom. 1:19)
                        No, God, none of the thousands of them believed by many to have existed, have made anything about their assumed existence evident within us. The natural world is evidence of the natural world, and there is nothing about it that evinces the existence of a god regardless of biblical assertions. Stop fooling yourself, whether god exists or not, the natural world is not evidence of his/its existence.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                          I appreciate that many scientists do not worry with the philosophical issues, and just get on with the science, however I think the assumptions of science are pretty well founded. We are right now communicating on technology that is made possible by science, and that is the greatest test of it - that we can use it to reliably and predictable do so much with it.

                          Yes, science assumes a materialist world, but that assumption is backed-up by centuries of experiments. Those experiments show that those areas science has looked at can be explained within a materialist framework. That does not mean the world is entirely materialist, but given how many areas science has looked at, that does increasingly look like a reasonable position to take. It would be wrong to say that everything can be explained by science (and indeed this is why scientists are still doing science), but it is fair to conclude that there is no reason to think a god exists (which is different to thinking there is reason to think no god exists).

                          Science is not objective - no human endeavor can ever hope to be just because it is a human endeavor. But it is more objective than anything else we have. You seem to be suggesting in the above that there is no objective truth; is that right? Elsewhere you seem to be arguing against that position.
                          So far I just thought it would be interesting to examine ideas on this book. A degree of realism has been given in the proposal that Modernism overplayed its claim to create perfect reasoning and science built from common sense or a common platform.

                          It may be useful to go back to the reasoning process untouched by Modernism -- this is just an idea I'm examining.

                          Also, you have made a great suggestion that [the physical] sciences are the most objective framework being pursued.

                          Smith had mentioned that a problem found by Postmodernism is in the lack of ability of language to communicate ideas accurately or sufficiently to other people -- this problem occurs due to the metanarrative (or cultural context) which is implicit behind any communications.

                          Probably the most awakening part of the book was its speaking of Lyotard and Derrida as concerned about the limits of language -- rather than the question whether truth can be known. Has Postmodernism been evaluated as being more detrimental that it is really is; has Postermodernism been misunderstood by too many of our favorite scholars.

                          Now, the other aspect that Smith mentions is that the society is largely influenced by Postermodernism such that our evangelism ought to be molded to reach people in this new paradigm. He does recommend a presuppositionalist approach -- this, of course, has already found approval among Reformed apologists -- so Smith has stayed in the Reformed camp in this sense.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            One would hope so. At least this one would hope so.

                            "... because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them." (Rom. 1:19)

                            Blessings,
                            Lee
                            I think this passage was ostensibly speaking about Jews. I'm not quite ready to explain the context behind my observation. As such, I would not find evidence of natural revelation in Romans 1.

                            Possibly the passage of a bit more relevance is the one that says "the fools says in his heart there is no god."

                            As far as the framework for common discussion, I would tend to say there are some things common enough that all mankind can understand things in the same way -- fire is hot, ice is cold.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                              Lyotard had a suspicion of science based on the disregard of the shaky ground of foundation for science. Science says its conclusions are objectively found when, in fact, the premise or philosophy of science is not scientifically proven. The scientific world is guilty of not acknowledging the metanarrative or 'myth', the myth which says science is objective -- or that there "is" objective truth. Another example is the attempt by atheists, working in a materialist emphasis of science, think that they can then say "everything is explained by science and thus there is no reason to think that a god exists;" this is a denial of the limitations of the metanarrative upon which modern science operation. Lyotard was concerned about the coverup rather than the content of the metanarrative.

                              I don't think Lyotard was declaring there is no truth but simply that the assumption of universally acceptable objective framework is a myth.
                              Real problem here with the misinformation of the Philosophy of science. Nothing is claimed to be 'scientifically proven in science' and science does not remotely believe in 'objective truth.' It all goes down hill from here descending into anarchist alchemy.
                              Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-22-2017, 09:44 AM.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                              37 responses
                              129 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                              21 responses
                              129 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                              80 responses
                              422 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                              45 responses
                              303 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Working...
                              X