tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post1312829966851186521..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: An outline on faith and reasonVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64064353125756474282010-01-20T10:27:43.806-07:002010-01-20T10:27:43.806-07:00unkle e said:
It suggests to me that none of us u...unkle e said:<br /><br /><i>It suggests to me that none of us use rationalism alone, but all of us use a lot more. For a believer, that "extra" may be faith, or belief in revelation or authority or personal experience. But what is the "extra" for a disbeliever?</i><br /><br />I would reply that the "extra" for the disbeliever would be <i>reason</i>, itself. After all, you don't proceed to "prove" first principles, since those are the things, by which, you use to <i>prove</i> anything. Since, in order to prove "reason", you must already be using it, therefore the problem of circularity is inevitable. Yet, no atheist/skeptic is perturbed by the reality of the unverifiable, and/or unfalsifiable, nature of reason. So, why then do they insist on placing theists under such a heavy "burden of proof" that they [skeptics], themselves, are unwilling and unable to lift?<br /><br />Even more peculiar, though, is the skeptic's waffling on epistemology, in general. Often, the skeptic wants to take a strong empiricist approach to knowledge as a seemingly easy means of defeating belief in God via fundamentally eliminating the possibility of "knowing" God. Meaning, that since God is not the kind of <i>thing</i> that can be directly observed by the "senses", therefore He cannot be known at all. Yet, this conundrum is no less true of the principles of "logic" and "ethics" than of God, Himself. To borrow from Locke, "reason" and "ethics" are neither primary, nor secondary, qualities. In other words, they neither inhere in material objects qua the qualities of those objects, nor are they impressions that objects have imprinted upon a "tabula rasa" qua the subjective qualities the mind experiences of those objects (i.e. impressions like blue or red, bitter or sweet, loud or soft, heavy or light, etc.,). In fact, "reason" defies every and all such ascriptions which are commonly associated with "objects of the senses".<br /><br />And it is to that very problematic issue of "reason" (i.e. from the standpoint of pure empiricism), and the realization of what the preconditions of empirical experience <i>must</i> be, from which Kant had awoke from his "dogmatic slumber" (i.e. by realizing the inadequacy of pure empiricism).Gregorynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-51783425964017925022010-01-17T09:52:05.638-07:002010-01-17T09:52:05.638-07:00Dear Dr Reppert, just saw your article on Christia...Dear Dr Reppert, just saw your article on Christianity Today 7 years ago at http://www.ctlibrary.com/bc/2003/sepoct/17.12.html as I am researching for my own dissertation on the Chronicles of Narnia and I must say it has been a lovely read (your sentiments on Lewis) although I do not have access to the full article. Glad to meet a kindred spirit and keep up the good work!<br /><br />-Pei Ling<br />An undergraduate from MalaysiaPei Linghttp://peiling.chinsrus.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20422001163785314522010-01-15T22:23:33.872-07:002010-01-15T22:23:33.872-07:00Just got back from holidays and saw this, and appr...Just got back from holidays and saw this, and appreciated it. I have been thinking a lot along these lines (probably to little effect, but them's the breaks!), and have concluded that the various arguments for and against God seem to more or less cancel each other out. Some people like me think they show God's existence is much more probable than not, but others think exactly the opposite.<br /><br />Granted this uncertainty, you'd expect most people's conclusions to be circumspect. But instead many people are very polarised -many believers and disbelievers are quite strong, even rabid in their (dis)belief.<br /><br />It suggests to me that none of us use rationalism alone, but all of us use a lot more. For a believer, that "extra" may be faith, or belief in revelation or authority or personal experience. But what is the "extra" for a disbeliever?unkleEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12207729664951716799noreply@blogger.com