This article is right up my alley so thank you. I appreciate how you laid that out and any recommended reading would be appreciated.
One thing I do have issue with is that many Christian apologists accept modern scientific theory like it can't be contested. Science is evolving and there are other theories that may make more sense given the facts. I guess what I am saying is why are Christians using modern theoretical models of science in apologetic defense of God?
I prefer the method of using philosophy and logic such as laid out in your article.
Glad you enjoyed it! Bahnsen's work covers some of this although I don't agree with him on everything. Rebecca McLaughlin's Confronting Christianity as well as Tom Holland's Dominion look at things from more of a historical angle. The Craig Atkins debate fleshes out some of the issues with the presuppositions of scientism towards the end section of the debate where Craig and Atkins are in dialogue. These may be some helpful starting points. However science changes we cannot avoid an extent to which rules of logic, mathematics and the rational intelligibility of the universe are still applicable. I don't find these immaterial assumptions consistent with a non-theistic worldview at all. Appreciate you engaging and sorry for the delay! Keep up the good work.
1. On the need to assume intelligibility: is it possible that there is rather an original discovery of intelligibility rather than an original assumption?
2. On the applicability of logic: this seems similar to the previous argument, but taking the logic inflection, is this argument based on the idea that logic is equivalent to good reasoning? This is formally disputed, of course.
3. On uniformity: this seems like an application of the intelligibility criterion. Does it suppose that chaos cannot produce what looks like order? What place then for tohu va-Vohu as a starting point for creation?
4. On the purpose of a bag of meat: perhaps a bag of meat performs physical relations with its environment that are proper to a bag of meat because it is a bag of meat? Why must there be anything more to it? Thinking, believing, wondering, etc. is what brains do.
5. Christianity is definitely not anti-science. But truth be told, it seems to have changed a great deal so as not to be, no?
Thanks for your comment. To discover anything or dispute anything you need to assume intelligibility in what you're discovering and laws of logic so I think you're missing how fundamental universal transcendent immaterial logic laws are. Also I'd contend without a personal God you can't have adequate grounds for logic or morals hence my contention. My article on the Virgin Births of secularism might help explain this more. I'll be writing more on these topics soon too.
This article is right up my alley so thank you. I appreciate how you laid that out and any recommended reading would be appreciated.
One thing I do have issue with is that many Christian apologists accept modern scientific theory like it can't be contested. Science is evolving and there are other theories that may make more sense given the facts. I guess what I am saying is why are Christians using modern theoretical models of science in apologetic defense of God?
I prefer the method of using philosophy and logic such as laid out in your article.
Glad you enjoyed it! Bahnsen's work covers some of this although I don't agree with him on everything. Rebecca McLaughlin's Confronting Christianity as well as Tom Holland's Dominion look at things from more of a historical angle. The Craig Atkins debate fleshes out some of the issues with the presuppositions of scientism towards the end section of the debate where Craig and Atkins are in dialogue. These may be some helpful starting points. However science changes we cannot avoid an extent to which rules of logic, mathematics and the rational intelligibility of the universe are still applicable. I don't find these immaterial assumptions consistent with a non-theistic worldview at all. Appreciate you engaging and sorry for the delay! Keep up the good work.
Good summary. A few thoughts:
1. On the need to assume intelligibility: is it possible that there is rather an original discovery of intelligibility rather than an original assumption?
2. On the applicability of logic: this seems similar to the previous argument, but taking the logic inflection, is this argument based on the idea that logic is equivalent to good reasoning? This is formally disputed, of course.
3. On uniformity: this seems like an application of the intelligibility criterion. Does it suppose that chaos cannot produce what looks like order? What place then for tohu va-Vohu as a starting point for creation?
4. On the purpose of a bag of meat: perhaps a bag of meat performs physical relations with its environment that are proper to a bag of meat because it is a bag of meat? Why must there be anything more to it? Thinking, believing, wondering, etc. is what brains do.
5. Christianity is definitely not anti-science. But truth be told, it seems to have changed a great deal so as not to be, no?
Thanks for your comment. To discover anything or dispute anything you need to assume intelligibility in what you're discovering and laws of logic so I think you're missing how fundamental universal transcendent immaterial logic laws are. Also I'd contend without a personal God you can't have adequate grounds for logic or morals hence my contention. My article on the Virgin Births of secularism might help explain this more. I'll be writing more on these topics soon too.
https://streettheologian.substack.com/p/the-virgin-births-of-secularism-10-2ff?utm_source=publication-search
Science is rigor and a rigorous examination of all available evidence has never found a way to support any version of god.
You're presupposing transcendence to disprove transcendence.
How is transcendence being presupposed? By talking about it?