Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

Notice – The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.

We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.

General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
See more
See less

Book Plunge: Why Christianity Is Not True: Chapter 1

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
    A good resource on this is Matthew Bates's Salvation By Allegiance Alone.
    That model of thinking about it strikes me as better than the common 'faith in Jesus' teaching, but it still seems deficient in many respects in terms of matching properly with the biblical evidence.

    I prefer the Thomistic arguments for theistic arguments.
    I wonder to what extent that's a function of you attending a thomistic educational facility that told you that most everything about Thomas Aquinas and the tradition that follows him was great? Most philosophers today would just roll their eyes at the thomistic ideas and have no interest in taking them seriously.

    I am not aware of any definitive investigation of comparative success at healing in different religions but my strong impression is that all have about the same success rate.
    Many religious and spiritualists claim to achieve miraculous healings on occasion. Pretty much all of them claim a low rate of success (i.e. that miracles are rare) and people investigating them have a tendency to quickly poke holes in the claims. Christians, on the whole, don't appear to make miraculous claims at a rate higher than any of the other religions. It's a reasonable conclusion that such claims are equally false across all religions and a product of human psychology combined with religious enthusiasm.
    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
      None of them are based on cosmology in the scientific sense.
      This is where he mentioned it; it was very off the cuff.

      https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...ic-high-school
      "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
        I remember Bill Craig saying one of them was based on at outdated cosmology, do you know what he's referring to?
        Could be any or all of Aquinas' "Five Ways":

        1-3 are cosmological arguments that boil down to "stuff has causes, trace those causes back, and you arrive at 'God'". Of course most modern physicists and cosmologists would say that causation breaks down at the quantum level and once you get as far back as the big bang they doubt it makes much sense to talk about causation as we understand it, and would expect that insofar as you can trace the causation back to anything it would be to a mathematical quantum theorem rather than a 'god'.

        4 is a weird platonic/ontological argument which is sort of "platonic forms are real, God is a platonic form" which most people would roll their eyes at and so isn't trotted out much.

        5 is the standard teleological argument of "stuff looks designed, therefore a designer exists", but evolution shows you don't need a designer at the biological level to get complex things, and standard cosmological models show you don't need a designer at the astronomy level to get matter to clump into galaxies and form stars and planets etc.

        So I think any and all are candidates for dismissing out of hand with a comment that they are based on an "outdated cosmology" or outdated understanding of science/the universe.
        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

        Comment


        • #19
          1-3 are not really about that at all. If you think in terms of physics, you don't really get the argument. It's metaphysics.

          4 I think has something going to it. If there are trancendentals, there is an ultimate of them. That's God.

          5. No. This is not ID in anyway. It's not about stuff looks designed. Biological evolution is not a refutation of the fifth way. It's actually a demonstration of it. See Gilson's From Aristotle To Darwin And Back Again

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
            1-3 are not really about that at all. If you think in terms of physics, you don't really get the argument. It's metaphysics.
            If you say so. I would tend to call them "worse versions of the Kalaam cosmological argument" and leave it at that.

            4 I think has something going to it. If there are trancendentals, there is an ultimate of them. That's God.
            Why on earth would anyone believe in trancendentals? And if they did, why on earth would they think any of those transcendentals were conscious? And if they did, why would they equate any of them with the creator/Christian God?

            5. No. This is not ID in anyway. It's not about stuff looks designed.
            Well Aquinas makes the whole thing nonsensical by basing it all on 'final causes' which philosophers today would reject out of hand as pretty much nonsensical and not relevant to logic. I think it's being charitable to Aquinas to say it's a teleological argument - the alternative IMO is to say "this is nonsense that made a kind of sense in the middle ages because they used a weird type of logic that's long since been discarded as ridiculous".
            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              If you say so. I would tend to call them "worse versions of the Kalaam cosmological argument" and leave it at that.
              When Aquinas makes the argument, he assumes the reader has a thorough understanding of Aristotle.

              Too many go with Newton instead.

              Why on earth would anyone believe in trancendentals? And if they did, why on earth would they think any of those transcendentals were conscious? And if they did, why would they equate any of them with the creator/Christian God?
              Because they believe that all things do aim at something and that something is called the good. That doesn't mean the good is conscious, but they find their basis in goodness without limit.

              Well Aquinas makes the whole thing nonsensical by basing it all on 'final causes' which philosophers today would reject out of hand as pretty much nonsensical and not relevant to logic. I think it's being charitable to Aquinas to say it's a teleological argument - the alternative IMO is to say "this is nonsense that made a kind of sense in the middle ages because they used a weird type of logic that's long since been discarded as ridiculous".
              Except it hasn't been. Final causality is essential to the sciences. It's even in evolution. Evolution is about the survival of the species so that the most fit can pass on their genes. That's final causality.

              If you have an iceberg floating through the ocean and it makes water cooler wherever it goes, you have final causality.

              Comment


              • #22
                Chapter 3 on evangelism.

                The link can be found here.

                Do we have a problem with evangelism? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

                We're going through David Pye's book again and looking at chapter 3 on evangelism and eternity. I consider this chapter to be a weak argument for what it sets out to prove, but hard-hitting for the content. I am still really considering sharing this in some Christian groups to get us all to remember why we do what we do.

                At the start, Pye says that Christians believe someone is either a Christian or lost by default. I think it is more likely they are, but there is the question of those who never heard and Christians have different answers to that. My answer is that God will judge us based on the light that we have. The judge of all the Earth will do right.

                Pye goes on to say about evangelism that

                Both the evangelistic crusades of the past and the Alpha course of today are, I believe,*significant*evidence against Christianity being true. If Christianity were true we would expect to see Christians integrating into their lives what they say they believe - sharing the Gospel with their relatives, friends, neighbours and work colleagues. In which case neither the Evangelistic crusades of the past nor the Alpha course of today would have been necessary.
                This is a giant non*sequitur. Let's consider how we could put this in a logical form.

                Christians are supposed to evangelize.
                Christians do not evangelize like they should.
                Therefore, Jesus did not rise from the dead.

                There are any number of reasons why Christians do not do this, many of them bad. Also, keep in mind that knowing what it is we should do doesn't seem to lead to us doing it many times. Many of us know about diet and exercise from our doctors, but we don't do it. Many of us know that we are to treat our neighbor better, but we don't do it.*

                If you want to show Christianity is not true, you have to show that Jesus did not rise. You can show Christians aren't following their marching orders, but that only says something about Christians. It doesn't say anything about Christianity. Keep in mind that Pye bases this on what he sees in the U.K. There is nothing about data in third world countries, especially those where doing evangelism can lead to execution.*

                From here, Pye goes through a list of reasons why people don't evangelize. One of the first ones is that they want their lives to be the witness. I agree that this is a flimsy excuse. Some people do that and no one ever asks them anything. You have to lead a radically, radically different life for this to work.*

                Generally, in face to face relationships, I try to get to know the person first and then try to weave my way into any openings. I'm not as good at face to face which is why most of my work is done on the internet. There is a fine line. You don't want to be obnoxious where people think you shove Christianity down their throats, but you don't want to be totally silent so people have no clue you're a Christian.

                The second reason is that some people say God hasn't called them to evangelize. I think this is weak as well. Do you have the Great Commission in your Bible? That's part of your marching orders. I agree with Pye that it is tiresome to hear people talking about doing what they feel called to do or led to do, this without any Scriptural warrant.

                I used to attend a church and when the offering would go around, the pastor would say "Give as you feel led." Part of me wanted to be sarcastic and put a penny in and say "That's what I felt God was leading me to give." I suspect I would have been told I wasn't listening. Just because we have the Holy Spirit doesn't change that we are to follow wisdom, such as in Proverbs. If you want to know about giving, read a passage like 2 Cor. 8-9.*

                It's also amazing how often these "signs" that people follow coincide with what they already want to do. This is not to say God cannot do something like this, but we should not expect it to be normative. I agree with Pye. This is often an excuse and giving divine authority to our feelings is dangerous.

                A third reason is that God is in control. After all, if God wants them saved, He'll do it. Even many of the staunchest Calvinists today would say God will do it, but He'll do it through evangelism. I also wonder if Christians will do this in other areas. Need food? Don't go to the grocery store. God will give you food if He wants you to eat. Don't put on your seat belt when you drive. God will keep you safe if He wants you to live.

                Pye shares a verse from a poem about this.

                Christ has no hands but our hands to do His work today
                He has no feet but our feet to lead men in the way
                He has no tongue but our tongue to tell men how He died
                He has no help but our help to bring them to His side
                There is also the adage that goes back to Augustine of to pray as if everything depended on God and work as if it all depended on you. It would be wonderful for an Arminian to have the confidence in the sovereignty of God that many Calvinists do. It would be wonderful if many Calvinists thought they absolutely had to do evangelism like Arminians do.

                The fourth is about the leading of the Holy Spirit and identical enough to the second that we need say nothing more.

                The fifth is that people already know the Gospel. Many of them do, but many who think they do also misrepresent it and not necessarily intentionally. We should not presume that someone does.* Many Christians I think don't even really know the Gospel.*

                A final reason is that it's better not to have heard than*to hear and reject and be lost. I consider this quite flimsy. I don't think it even deserves a response if a Christian treats this seriously.

                There are other reasons though. Sometimes people don't know what to say. Sometimes they don't know what could turn a person off. For this, I honestly think the church needs some classes on evangelism.*

                Finally, we end with some questions on Hell. Now my perspective on Hell is different from many others. I also think there are degrees of suffering in Hell and degrees of reward in Heaven. This is a complex question and simple answers won't do.

                I also agree with Pye that we should take no delight in people being in Hell. If it weren't for the grace of God, it would be us. Moody is once said to have said that if you speak on Hell, you'd better have tears in your eyes. I sometimes see Christians say eternity is a long time to be wrong. If someone says that, they'd better think about what that means.

                Pye presents two scenarios then:

                (i) A 65 year old Christian, Clive, is retiring from the job he has been in for the last 30 years. On his final day there is a presentation to him and he is shown a great deal of warmth and affection. Likewise Clive feels a deep love for his colleagues who he’s spent so much time with and with whom he’s been through many good times and bad times - challenges, disappointments, joys, successes. None of these colleagues are Christians.


                A few days later, alone at home, Clive reflects about the eternal destiny of these people who he worked with and loves. Can it really be that they are condemned? he wonders. Can it really be that they’re destined for hell? Surely not? He imagines himself in heaven with the knowledge that these dear people are suffering in hell.“Would I be able to enjoy heaven in those circumstances?” he asks himself. He vaguely wonders whether he should at some point have tried sharing the Gospel with any of them.


                Then he reflects further: “‘For your thoughts are not my thoughts’ saith the Lord.” With a deep sigh Clive reflects “Who am I to argue against the Word of God? Who am I to think that I can judge better than God what the consequences of unforgiven sin should be?”

                And with this he makes himself a cup of coffee and switches on the TV.
                Clive is pathetic and might I add misusing a text of Scripture. No Christian should applaud what Clive is doing. Many of us wouldn't, but in many cases we do act like Clive.*

                He then gives a second story

                (ii) A man, Donald, goes through his working life employed in a factory. He is a decent man, hard-working and honest. At 20 he marries his childhood sweetheart and they go on to have 3 children. Life is hard. Donald’s health is poor but he rarely misses a day’s work. He and his family constantly struggle to make ends meet. People who know Donald see him as a devoted husband and father, a man who is kind, reliable and trustworthy. Family life is happy and joyful despite the lack of money.

                Donald retires aged 65 but within a year he has a heart attack and dies. In his life Donald never became a Christian.
                Pye asks how we feel about this, but really, does that matter? I don't feel good about many things in the world, but that doesn't mean anything about them. Reality doesn't change depending on my feelings.

                On the other hand, would Pye prefer the more Islamic system of angels recording good deeds and bad deeds and you'd better hope the good outweighs the bad? How is this system not arbitrary? Who decides how many points X is worth for good and how many points are deducted for Y? How do we know the point system?

                The reality is God gave a non-arbitrary system. Perfection is the requirement. He also offers to pay it for us. Donald did do good things, but how did He treat the greatest good out there and if Christianity is true, God is the greatest good. Does one spurn God and say they will go their own way? The thing about Pye's system is really God is irrelevant to it. That's not a Christian system at all. Of course, Pye is not a Christian, but how could this system be compatible with Christianity?

                The next chapter will be about faith. I have my concerns about how that will go, but we will see.

                In Christ,
                Nick Peters

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                  When Aquinas makes the argument, he assumes the reader has a thorough understanding of Aristotle.

                  Too many go with Newton instead.
                  Is that another way of saying "Aquinas lived a long time ago when people believed weird and unscientific things like what Aristotle made up, and since modern science has been invented, Aquinas no longer has relevance."

                  Because they believe that all things do aim at something and that something is called the good.


                  Final causality is essential to the sciences.

                  Modern scientists and philosophers don't seem to think so.

                  If you have an iceberg floating through the ocean and it makes water cooler wherever it goes, you have final causality.
                  "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                  "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                  "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                    Is that another way of saying "Aquinas lived a long time ago when people believed weird and unscientific things like what Aristotle made up, and since modern science has been invented, Aquinas no longer has relevance."




                    Modern scientists and philosophers don't seem to think so.

                    I was hoping for something substantial, but I guess I'm not going to get it.

                    Let me know when you have a real reply to Aristotelian metaphysics. Modern science is no objection to it whatsoever.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                      Let me know when you have a real reply to Aristotelian metaphysics.
                      My view is simply that I see no reason to take it at all seriously. If you want to base your views on some view of metaphysics developed by a random guy over 2000 years ago and that philosophers and scientists today don't particularly give a hoot about, the onus is on you, if you want to convince anyone, as to why we should be interested in what that guy said and believe it.

                      I'm coming at this with a major in philosophy and a general interest in classics, so I've read a decent amount of Plato and Aristotle and other ancient Greek philosophers. Aristotle thought that the purpose of the brain was to regulate the temperature of the body. Today we just shake our heads and laugh when we read that. Most philosophers today do the same for Aristotle's metaphysics. If you put forth a theory of physics that was predicated on 'what Aristotle said' it wouldn't be reasonable to take you seriously. Why would you think that people should take you seriously when you do the same with Aristotle's metaphysics?
                      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Why do you assume the modern is always right? Is it not chronological snobbery to deride an idea on its age and not its content? I do not know enough abput aristotle to say wether he is right or not, but if you say scientist dont use him i have to ask which ones? Why? What framework undergirds their work.
                        sigpic

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I do so because Aristotle's metaphysics in no way depend on his metaphysics. I notice you're saying his metaphysics are wrong, but the only example you gave was not metaphysics but rather something in physics.

                          Interesting.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Chapter Four is on Faith.

                            The link can be found here.

                            -----

                            What is faith? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

                            It was with a fear of great disappointment that I read David Pye's chapter in Why Christianity Is Not True on faith. I was getting concerned when the chapter began. David Pye starts with

                            The reader may for some time have been wanting to say something along these lines: “What about faith? You’re talking about Christianity, a religion, but don’t religious beliefs just come down to faith? Aren’t you missing the point by ignoring faith and talking only about evidence?”

                            In other words, religion and religious beliefs are seen as belonging to a different category than most human thought, one where beliefs not based on evidence are viewed as normal and to be expected.
                            From here, Pye goes on to describe a pastor who says this is a misconception and the congregation chuckles. He says this might be a chuckle of anxiety as many think that this is what faith is. Sadly, I think that Pye is right in this. This kind of faith is seen as a virtue. This shows a great failure in educating the church.

                            The major shock to me in this chapter came when in a way, Pye gets the answer to the question of what faith is right.

                            Faith can be seen as trust. To have faith in someone is to trust them. We can think of faith in God or faith in the bible in this kind of way - trusting in God or trusting in the bible as the Word of God.
                            He goes on to say that

                            A word that I think captures what faith is like in practice is loyalty.

                            Having a religious faith in practice - and especially in the long term - may be similar to supporting a poor football team. A loyal supporter stays with his team through thick and thin. Even though his team have been relegated each of the last two seasons, have just been knocked out of the Cup in the first round and are still playing hopelessly - he still turns out week after week to support them. He is showing loyalty.

                            This, I think, is very similar to the outlook of religious people. There may be little evidence to support what the religious person believes. Nonetheless he is loyal. He sticks with what he believes. He has faith.
                            The last part about a lack of evidence I disagree with of course, but the rest of this isn't too bad. In the ancient context, faith would be seen as a kind of loyalty to a person. Faith is not about how you know but how you live what you know. The analogy of an airplane is accurate. One can be equipped with all the knowledge that planes fly and are a safe way to travel generally. It's when one takes the step and gets on the plane that one is acting on what they know, which is an act of faith. It's not blind faith, but it is following through with the evidence.

                            Pye goes on to list some other ideas of faith. One is faith as defiance. He tells about a Catholic who doesn't know his Bible well and is visited by JWs. When confronted with their knowledge, to which sadly they are better informed than he is, he says he does not care what they say. He was born a Catholic and he will die a Catholic and nothing will change that.

                            This is not true faith and this is a little problem with Pye's earlier analogy. Faith to a sports team does not mean they are the only true sports team. Faith in an ideology should mean that ideology is true and you live according to it. If one does not have solid reason to believe it is and is confronted with unanswered defeaters and one cannot find an answer, then one should seriously consider they are wrong. Faith, properly understood, is good, but faith for the sake of faith is not.

                            Pye goes on to talk about faith as something to attack or destroy. He quotes Dawkins who says religious faith is put in a bubble often that dares not be questioned. I have to say I wonder what faith Dawkins is talking about. Even before The God Delusion I saw Christianity regularly being treated in such a way. It was nothing new to me. He also writes about how Alister McGrath was said to destroy someone's faith in atheism.

                            Pye sees this as a bad usage of the word faith since Christians present faith as a virtue so why speak of faith in atheism? When we say something like this, we mean that if we were to take the atheistic idea of faith, then we aim to destroy it. There are people who have a loyalty to atheism and don't really care about the evidence. They will believe anything provided it argues against Christianity. (Jesus mythicism anyone?)

                            Pye also talks about faith as a trump card. What do you do with a lack of evidence? Play the faith card. This is again, nothing like what the Bible means by faith. I have my own writing on what faith means. I have no patience for a Christian who speaks about faith when presented with contrary evidence.

                            Another instance is belief being thrown out as a nebulous claim. I agree. People are told to believe something and they're not told what to believe or why they should believe it. Belief for the sake of belief is no more a virtue than faith for the sake of faith is.*

                            Another case brought forward is that of blind faith. I have to agree with the criticism of Gumbel. Dawkins presents faith as belief without evidence, and he's not alone in this, but the irony is that this is itself a claim of faith. Dawkins would be hard pressed to find a scholar of Greek in the time of the New Testament who would think that that is what is meant by pistis.

                            He also looks at cognitive bias. He quotes McGrath again who says that we all have this and usually it's to conserve what we already believe. I agree that this is true and it's true for anyone. I know of a number of atheists who I am sure would rather commit ritual suicide than actually admit something in the New Testament could be true. I also know a number of Christians who hold on to their faith for purely emotional reasons.

                            Pye says he suspects most Christians hold on to Christianity due to social losses if they deconverted. This could be true, but as expected, it is not true for all. Just last night, I was talking to someone about what it meant to become a Christian and told him that being a Christian won't always make you feel good. Sometimes, Christianity feels miserable. You should become a Christian though because Jesus rose from the dead. When asked "But what if Jesus is just another Jewish rabbi who died a horrible death?" then I replied, "Don't follow Him. You can like His teachings and live them out, but don't believe He's the Son of God or anything like that." No one should ever believe something they think is untrue.

                            Pye ends saying that he believes we can only know if something is true by the evidence. I agree. He also says Christians point to evidence when available but faith when it is not. For some, this is true, but for a number, including myself, this is not. Faith is not an epistemology. It is a response to what one knows. If one says they know the Bible is the Word of God, it is faith to live it out even when life is hard. It is not to believe the Bible is the Word of God when you are confronted with contrary epistemological evidence.

                            In Christ,
                            Nick Peters

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              In another thread I argued that faith comes from natural revelation.
                              Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                              Everyone is given faith according to God's word by means of God`s word, ". . . So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world." The argument being that from natural revelation, Romans 10:17-18, Psalm 19:4, ". . . Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world." God having spoken the universe into existence and all the universe's laws being God's word.
                              . . . 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


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by TheWall View Post
                                Why do you assume the modern is always right? Is it not chronological snobbery to deride an idea on its age and not its content?
                                Human knowledge accumulates by a gradual process whereby ideas are put forth and discussed. People will poke holes in them, or suggest changes to them. Then more ideas will be put forth and discussed etc. So a good measure of the quality of an idea is the extent to those that came after and who reflected on it and discussed it, either thought it was a good idea and kept it, or thought it was a bad idea and rejected it. So if the idea is a good one, it will be repeated by intellectuals over the years and will be found in text-books today. There will be a current version of the same idea, where people over the centuries have worked out all the kinks and tweaked it until it's as near perfect as can be, and so modern writers would present that perfected version of the idea and comment on how it evolved through the centuries and give credit to its originator. But if pretty much everyone who's looked at an idea has said "that's a terrible idea", then it won't be added to the accumulated sum of human wisdom and won't be taught down the centuries to new students, except as a historical curiosity.

                                but if you say scientist dont use him i have to ask which ones? Why?
                                All of them. Because what some guy wrote thousands of years ago and which the consensus of intelligent people since have since discarded as silly holds no value for doing science today. Furthermore Aristotle makes no predictions and gives no theories or frameworks that might be helpful for doing science anyway.
                                "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                                "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                                "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-15-2024, 10:19 PM
                                14 responses
                                75 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-13-2024, 10:13 PM
                                6 responses
                                61 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-12-2024, 09:36 PM
                                1 response
                                23 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-11-2024, 10:19 PM
                                0 responses
                                22 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                                Started by Apologiaphoenix, 03-08-2024, 11:59 AM
                                7 responses
                                52 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Working...
                                X