tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post1582354190994640141..comments2024-03-18T11:10:18.708-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Steve Lovell comments on the Outsider Test for FaithVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger179125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59074874434294309652010-07-03T21:46:39.905-07:002010-07-03T21:46:39.905-07:00The problem with the so called "Outsider Test...The problem with the so called "Outsider Test for Faith" is that it is actually based on a form of "generalizing about culture."<br /><br />Generalizing about a cultural upbringing doesn't address WHY a particular culture is right or wrong about their faith. It doesn't address historical evidence. It doesn't address the specific truth that is conveyed or WHY it is true or untrue. It doesn't address any progression of (yes) accumulative case argument.<br />(from hard atheism to agnosticism to agnostic theism to Infinite Creator to Orthodox Monotheism to the actual SPECIFICS of why born-again Christianity is a fulfillment of Orthodox Monotheism and how Jesus claims exclusive truth that is opposed to modern Judaism, Islam and non-born-again Christianity).<br /><br />Until we address specific arguments and evidences themselves we are generalizing about what happens with culture. This is why the OTF is so meaningless.<br /><br />You can pretend to forget everything you ever learned and claim all of your experiences are not real in order to generalize about culture and claim you are engaging in critical thinking... but true critical thinking understands that knowledge is based upon other knowlege. That learning is based on established axioms and observations.<br /><br />That you don't need to somehow pretend that there is no God in order to question all of the logic that leads you to the conclusion that there IS clearly a Creator.<br /><br />The Creator is clearly concluded based on scientific observation...<br />and following those who employ the circular assumptions of materialism and naturalism will only lead you away from basic logic and critical thinking.<br /><br />Question what you are doing when you are requiring so called "naturalistic" explanations.Breckminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16059206540177008895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-51859140459024476652010-07-03T21:26:58.454-07:002010-07-03T21:26:58.454-07:00This is still acompletely idiotic argument for the...This is still acompletely idiotic argument for the "truth" of your invisible, non-existent god.<br /><br />Calling something idiotic is general and doesn't deal with anything specific or any particular observation that is made throughout the world.<br />(which have nothing to do with the Discovery Institute).<br />That's "idiotic" is NOT a rebuttal.<br /><br />It is a cop out without explanation.Breckminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16059206540177008895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-87319455364452171572010-07-03T21:23:32.447-07:002010-07-03T21:23:32.447-07:00"I think for everyone's benefit it should..."I think for everyone's benefit it should be known that the OTF was originally a call to read a set of atheistic books along with Christian apologetics."<br /><br />What IF the so called Christian apologetics books are "behind?"<br /><br />IOW, critical thinking asks questions. More and more questions and these questions need answers. Systematic theology is progressive in answering these questions. Knowledge is accumulative and this is how we learn more and more.<br /><br />Where we are in the progression of answering questions (especially when Christian apologists are busy both answering questions AND teaching. This creates speakers who are over worked and unable to write enough books to address these questions.<br /><br /><br />Bottom line: How will you know whether or not Christian apologists have "caught up" in answering these questions?<br /><br />Question everything.Breckminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16059206540177008895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-46764713970359891252010-07-01T08:15:48.799-07:002010-07-01T08:15:48.799-07:00I think for everyone's benefit it should be kn...I think for everyone's benefit it should be known that the OTF was originally a call to read a set of atheistic books along with Christian apologetics. It was a really simple and clear test, and I'm afraid Loftus had tried to turn it into his doctoral thesis now.<br /><br />I think he's just begging the question, myself.Brad Haggardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14814856985147330634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-15274211700343032452010-06-30T18:01:30.564-07:002010-06-30T18:01:30.564-07:00Breckmin said,
"...There is clearly ONE reli...Breckmin said,<br /><br />"...There is clearly ONE religion which sings praises to an Infinite Creator with joy, peace, love and a claim of spiritual sensation. This is done all over the world to One God and One Savior. Praise music is completely different than recited religious songs or chants or following along while reading."<br /><br />This is still acompletely idiotic argument for the "truth" of your invisible, non-existent god.<br /><br />And your "accumulative case argument " sounds like it was coppied and pasted from the Discovery Institute.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61891037701968370312010-06-30T17:50:12.664-07:002010-06-30T17:50:12.664-07:00@BlueDevilKnight
There are many people who have c...@BlueDevilKnight<br /><br />There are many people who have come to faith through worship music.<br /><br />Reducing the observation to "gospel choir" however is evasive to the specifics of joy, peace, thankfulness and love as well as a peace that surpasses all understanding and spiritual experience/sensation through being filled with His Spirit.<br /><br />It is the *specifics* of praise music that make it unique to born-again Christianity (ALL OVER THE WORLD) only. It is a type of praise which is specifically directed toward an Infinite Creator (the God of Abraham) and the Man (Jesus) that He became.<br /><br />There is nothing else like it.<br /><br />Question everything.Breckminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16059206540177008895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11923470887689370382010-06-29T21:29:25.229-07:002010-06-29T21:29:25.229-07:00O'Connor,
"My argument was that your use...O'Connor,<br /><br /><i>"My argument was that your use of a Western Christian apologist to defend your Western Christianity is intellectually circular"</i> <br /><br />Are you really this dense, or are you just a dishonest asshat? I did not quote Lewis to "defend my Western Christianity". I quoted him because it's a well constructed thought that attempts to show the foolishness of being too skeptical of inherited knowledge, since *most* of the knowledge one claims, is inherited. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity in particular and can and does apply to ALL knowledge. It's relevant because there is a *parallel* lesson here with respect to this ridiculous notion you and Loftus are selling that one should discount knowledge out of hand simply because it was inherited. My point, for the THIRD time is that the truth is what matters. Not the vehicle by which it comes and I have not made any argument for what that truth is. That isn't my point and that's not what I'm arguing for. Now, how many times do I have to say that before you stop constructing your straw man? <br /><br />Since the rest of your comment is nothing but puffery and typical internet toughguy bullshit, and since you ***repeatedly*** ignore what I actually wrote, you are either an idiot, or you're just playing games with words, entertaining yourself with your ability to turn a witty phrase. Enjoy yourself, and the accolades you receive from your applauding puppy dog followers. You're obviously not interested in a serious discussion and so I'm done with you.Shacklemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01190598990748327537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-63716200731989000142010-06-29T20:44:03.640-07:002010-06-29T20:44:03.640-07:00I have never heard the 'Gospel Choir' argu...I have never heard the 'Gospel Choir' argument for the truth of Christianity. :)Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-90111717140406847272010-06-29T19:57:56.646-07:002010-06-29T19:57:56.646-07:00John Loftus - "So if you assume your own reli...John Loftus - "So if you assume your own religion is false at the outset and the evidence can still lead you to accept it, your religious faith has passed the OTF."<br /><br />When you say "your own religion" you immediately fail to address the difference between born-again Christianity and all other religions. <br /><br />Born-again Christianity is NOT just a religion or a commitment to a particular faith...it is a "relationship."<br /><br />So assume your own relationship with your Savior and Lord and God doesn't exist from the outset and then your relationship can lead you back to God and faith? Then your relationship with God has passed the OTF????<br /><br />There is a LOGICAL special pleading because of the difference involving spiritual regeneration which can not be ignored.<br /><br />And what constitutes evidence? Do miracles count as evidence? Do spiritual encounters (exorcisms)with unclean deceiving spirits that can not be explained naturally count as evidence? <br /><br />Does being filled with God's Spirit in a special annointing also count as evidence?<br /><br />There are so many dynamics to deal with here... and I can even throw in world wide praise songs to a specific Creator/Lord Jesus Christ as an observation of behavior AND experience that can not be ignored.<br /><br />We can all pretend for a moment that something real isn't true..<br /><br />that doesn't change objective reality...<br /><br />Question everything. It just might lead you to align yourself with objective reality. (Karl Popper's critical rationalism was at first headed in the "right" direction).Breckminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16059206540177008895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2955890692799555432010-06-29T19:35:55.473-07:002010-06-29T19:35:55.473-07:00"it is a useful heuristic to imagine you want..."it is a useful heuristic to imagine you want to kill your cherished views and see how well they fare (that's Popper's falsificationism in a nutshell, after all: it's a great way to overcome confirmation bias, or the tendency to look for evidence that confirms our view of things rather than evidence that falsifies our views)."<br /><br />But Popper's critical rationalism also understood that knowledge and truth were objective existences. If you have experiential eye witness accounts to miracles performed in the Name of a Holy Creator then you are going to believe/know that the Creator's Existence is objective reality.<br /><br />Of course we should use a heuristic method with our critical examination of all religions...but don't be naive with respect the their extreme differences. There is clearly ONE religion which sings praises to an Infinite Creator with joy, peace, love and a claim of spiritual sensation. This is done all over the world to One God and One Savior. Praise music is completely different than recited religious songs or chants or following along while reading.<br /><br />Trial and error is important, but when you understand that error is inevitable in the details - at some point you have to look beyond the hyper-technicalities at face value and employ wisdom.<br /><br />Seeing that praise songs are sung to Jesus Christ and not Mohammed or Buddha or Baha'i or Krishna or anyone else in this world. Praise music is very specific in its world wide implementation.<br /><br />Critical thinking on this issue is sine qua non. It is not an argument for 'whether there is a Creator' - that is completely unnessary given a correct understanding of natural theology.<br />It is a question of "Who" is the Creator and what we would expect to see based on concluding that there is already a Creator based on science.<br /><br />Someone may object and say "songs are sung about Santa Claus but that doesn't make Santa Claus real." This is, however, clearly incongruous to the point. Santa Claus is NOT an alleged creator of all matter or finite existence in the universe..and in fact - I know of no adult who actually believes Santa Claus currently lives at the North Pole and has rain deer, etc.<br />Also, these songs are not worship songs either. No one is worshipping Santa Claus.<br /><br />We have to have at least an ounce of pragmatism when seeing joyful praise music to the Creator through out the world and how this is NOT in anyway tantamount to something written by the Beatles or the Grateful Dead which is NOT intended to be worship music.<br /><br />I never see anyone really address the specific point of praise music in the context of worship. If people really want an outsider test for faith...they need to open their eyes to the "specifics" of this type of praise music. Western or not...NO style has a monopoly on the joy, peace, thankfulness and spiritual fellowship that exists with specified praise music.<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejg7haph29w<br /><br />see the end of this song for evidence of the type of thing that takes place world wide to ONE Infinite CreatorBreckminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16059206540177008895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-39109988320445839452010-06-29T16:30:03.258-07:002010-06-29T16:30:03.258-07:00"...an object lesson in the ideological calci..."...an object lesson in the ideological calcification ethnocentrism breeds"<br /><br />Wow, that is a good turn of phrase....Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-37889789751026548542010-06-29T14:48:14.668-07:002010-06-29T14:48:14.668-07:00Shack,
I said you seem to be an object lesson - I...Shack,<br /><br />I said you seem to be an object lesson - I didn't practice an ad hominem.<br /><br />My argument was that your use of a Western Christian apologist to defend your Western Christianity is intellectually circular and evidence to the first premise of Loftus' test.<br /><br />You believe your culture a superior arbitor of knowledge because it is yours. That is obvious by both your use of Lewis (whose argument amounts to a strawman that elevates obedience to the highest moral good) and your defensiveness.<br /><br />Where does Lewis get his 99% figure. It is evidence to his gilded rhetoric and your use of it is evidence to your calcified ideology hardened by your ethnocentrism. <br /><br />And if you are a Christian as I suspect you to be then yes, you do believe you have the inside scoop on the truth in the character of Jesus.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-39226964250672753682010-06-29T11:33:11.823-07:002010-06-29T11:33:11.823-07:00"You seem to be an object lesson in the ideol...<i>"You seem to be an object lesson in the ideological calcification ethnocentrism breed"</i><br /><br />Nice ad hominem. Get over yourself, O'Connor. You don't know me from Adam so you can kiss my ass.<br /><br />If you had actually read what I wrote, you'd see I didn't claim to know the truth. I claimed that the truth cannot be discarded simply because it is acquired via cultural influences (or, put differently, by authority--which is why the CS Lewis quote is directly relevant). Do you deny this? <br /><br />I also didn't claim that culture doesn't influence belief. What I claimed was that cultural influences are not necessarily defeaters to truth or truth-claims, which is why the OTF is so pointless. <br /><br />One should look for truth. Period. How one comes to know it is immaterial. <br /><br />I have little doubt you'll reply with *more* ad hominems. Whatever makes you feel good, toughguy.<br /><br />Oh, and I agree that I can't claim exact knowledge of the methodology Loftus uses because he insists that we all buy his book before we *really* get to know it and before we're allowed to argue for/against it. LOL! That. Is. Awesome!Shacklemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01190598990748327537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-38799418134961147852010-06-29T10:49:35.147-07:002010-06-29T10:49:35.147-07:00Shackleman,
I don't think you understand the ...Shackleman,<br /><br />I don't think you understand the OTF methodology. I base this observation on what you wrote and your citation of Lewis to make your point. Drawing from your Western and Christian cultural heritage to defend your Western and Christian cultural heritage seems intellectual circular.<br /><br />Additionally your statment, "Look, if God exists, then any teaching---culturally acquired or otherwise---should be accepted and the counter rejected. <br /><br />Truth is not constrained by culture and shouldn't be rejected because of it either. Truth is truth. This whole OTF is foolishness and is nothing more than an (sic) rebellion against Father's religion," could easily be made by an Islamic apologist waiting to enjoy the next Caliphate. <br /><br />Islam of course embodying in its substance "peace, purity, submission and obedience." I mean what could be more authoritative than that?<br /><br />John's tone has no bearing on the first premise of his test and anyone who has done a modicum of travel can see how culture bounded by geography lends itself to discrete and unquestioned belief systems.<br /><br />You seem to be an object lesson in the ideological calcification ethnocentrism breeds.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23802121848013172332010-06-29T08:27:31.727-07:002010-06-29T08:27:31.727-07:00BDK: Nice post. I think you hit the nail squarel...BDK: Nice post. I think you hit the nail squarely on the head with it. Though, Loftus doesn't just oversell the OTF from the standpoint of an arrogant and emotional outburst. He claims it can do, and does more than it possible can. He claims all religions fail the outsider test. This is pure nonsense for reasons I point to in my previous post. <br /><br />But, I'm sure he's drummed up at least one new sale of his book as a result of this ridiculously attended to thread. Crazy like a fox, that guy!Shacklemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01190598990748327537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13691986230625610112010-06-29T06:17:47.600-07:002010-06-29T06:17:47.600-07:00Shackelman: The conclusion John draws from the fac...Shackelman: The conclusion John draws from the fact that people's religious beliefs are largely culturally determined is not that such beliefs are false. Though he sometimes does come off that way, he isn't commiting such a cultural ad hominem. <br /><br />Rather, the main conclusion of such drastic cultural conditioning (coupled with variability across culture) is that such beliefs deserve a skeptical eye. Not particularly contentious or earth-shattering. People should consider that they might be wrong, examine the evidence and logic behind their views. They should also compare such evidence/reasons as provided by alternative views such as agnosticism, Islam, atheism. <br /><br />One heuristic he pushes is to examine your own religion as critically as you evaluate religions that you are not a member of. But frankly that isn't essential in my eyes (though he loves to push it), and I think most people are as lazy in their critiques of other religions as they are in their own. However, it is a useful heuristic to imagine you want to kill your cherished views and see how well they fare (that's Popper's falsificationism in a nutshell, after all: it's a great way to overcome confirmation bias, or the tendency to look for evidence that confirms our view of things rather than evidence that falsifies our views).<br /><br />In sum, the kernel idea in the OTF is a pretty banal Philosophy 101 sort of idea. Loftus has managed to obscure the reasonableness of the general claims with his rather arrogant and tendentious presentation style. If presented in a more cool manner, he could make the people refusing to take the OTF seem like silly unthinking sods, which would be a rhetorical coup.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-63226899653707357762010-06-29T06:15:00.921-07:002010-06-29T06:15:00.921-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Eric Thomsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06847717704454032165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82243534844821264772010-06-28T20:18:52.608-07:002010-06-28T20:18:52.608-07:00"Yet you are quite happy that people simply c..."Yet you are quite happy that people simply create a idea of Gods,"<br /><br />No. There is One Infinite Creator regardless of how many people try to create false finite gods.<br /><br />What you are attempting to do, however, is to look at all of the abberrations like Jim Jones and various cult leaders and say "see, this is what can happen" - when in reality these are the ones who are all about deception.<br /><br />You could have easily tested them against what Jesus said and known clearly that suicide was a deception.<br /><br />I agree with Shackleman. It is utterly ridiculous to even give "culture" this much attention with respect to knowing truth.<br />It is easily demonstrated as a logical fallacy to claim that any culture can have truth based on tradition or numbers without accumulative case argument and evidence. That is why the OTF is so meaningless. It fails to address the specific evidence that Christianity is based upon.<br /><br />Trying to skirt alleged evidence and accumulative case argument and trying to allude to culture does not appear to be scholarly at all.<br /><br />Question why culture has anything to do with objective slices of that which is.Breckminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16059206540177008895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26779490462544303002010-06-28T20:13:09.519-07:002010-06-28T20:13:09.519-07:00Oops...too fast. This :
"Look, if God exist...Oops...too fast. This :<br /><br /><i>"Look, if God exists, then any teaching---culturally acquired or otherwise---should be accepted and the counter rejected."</i><br /><br />should have read:<br /><br />"If it is true that God exists, then..."Shacklemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01190598990748327537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-39909668206154079372010-06-28T20:02:27.865-07:002010-06-28T20:02:27.865-07:00"How about addressing position X"
First..."How about addressing position X"<br /><br />First, before I answer these, I would like to note that it is "unwise" to reject knowledge of the Creator through scientific evidence based on what you do or don't understand about particular faiths. How many times have I had biblical objections in the middle of a scientific argument is somewhat fascinating. I always make the point that you can not reject scientific evidence on the basis of what you do or do not understand about the "bible."<br /><br />"1,How about you first address why your christian God might have never appeared personally amongst all nations and all men?."<br /><br /><br />I could quote Romans 1:20 but I'm not sure you would get the point. The fact is that the Christian God is "Infinite" therefore you could never "see" all of Him and anything finite that you would see would possibly be an appearance of His Glory at some point in the universe. It would probably kill you. It is more logical for God to become a Man and live amoung us.<br />Only God should be King over Israel. <br /><br />Yet you want "equal opportunity." Equal fairness... in a universe where people are born into circumstances where they are affected by other people's choices.<br />No such equal opportunity "fairness" exists in this universe. We hurt each other. We kill each other and change/affect each others personal/eternal destinys based on what could have been more optimal for us. There is no fairness in the universe therefore the concept of fairness is an illogical thing to appeal to in a universe where people have absolute choices that affect one another.<br /><br />Answer to point #1. It's not fair.<br />God saw Abraham's faith and chose Israel as His chosen nation. End of story. God is God and we are not.<br /><br /><br />"2,Why your christian god is obviously so culturally motivated ?"<br /><br />This is known as a pseudo question because it is a question with a false assumption. God is not motivated by culture...but those who write about Him are affected by their culture and environment and God does allow for specific laws to prevent abuses due to cultural common practices.<br /><br /><br />"...It obviously never personally appeared in China by its own "motivation""<br /><br />The gospel has spread into China, however. God works through people and He works through relationships.<br /><br /> "..No it didnt....Instead it took Christian evangelism! to take! it to places like China."<br /><br />Yes. God uses Christians as instruments of His Will to spread the gospel. This is multi-faceted and 'one' of the reasons is that He is glorified in weakness and humility. Question everything.Breckminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16059206540177008895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20606289805714627602010-06-28T19:52:54.206-07:002010-06-28T19:52:54.206-07:00I am both fascinated and disturbed that this topic...I am both fascinated and disturbed that this topic has received so much attention.<br /><br />All this bashing of culture is completely pointless and a strawman. <br /><br />Either there is one objectively true reality or there isn't. Either we can know it or we can't. If there is only one reality and we humans can know it, then any one person or culture or society can, by necessity, be closer to that truth in its teachings and understandings than others. Perhaps to the Western ear, (an ear tuned to relativism) that is politically incorrect. But that's just too damned bad. <br /><br />Rejecting belief, simply because one is taught them by their surroundings is foolishness. As CS Lewis once said: <br /><br /><i>Do not be scared by the word authority. Believing things on authority only means believing them because you have told them by someone you think is trustworthy. Ninety-nine per cent of the things you believe are believed on authority. I believe there is such a place as New York. I have not seen it myself. I could not prove by abstract reasoning that there must be such a place. I believe it because reliable people have told me so. The ordinary man believes in the Solar System, atoms, evolution, and the circulation of the blood on authority — because the scientists say so. Every historical statement in the world is believed on authority. None of us has seen the Norman Conquest or the defeat of the Armada. None of us could prove them by pure logic as you prove a thing in mathematics. We believe them simply because people who did see them have left writings that tell us about them: in fact, on authority. A man who jibbed at authority in other things as some people do in religion would have to be content to know nothing all his life.</i><br /><br />Look, if God exists, then any teaching---culturally acquired or otherwise---should be accepted and the counter rejected. <br /><br />Truth is not constrained by culture and shouldn't be rejected because of it either. Truth is truth. This whole OTF is foolishness and is nothing more than an rebellion against Father's religion.Shacklemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01190598990748327537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-22625611595539532572010-06-28T19:47:46.832-07:002010-06-28T19:47:46.832-07:00"There is little "objective truth" ..."There is little "objective truth" that can be claimed to exist"<br /><br />The truth is not in the claim... it is in the actuality of existence.<br /><br />If a Creator does indeed exist and He HAS revealed Himself to a chosen few (even if it is unfair by human standards...yet no such example of cosmic fairness exists in the universe to somehow lay a charge against God), then no matter how many religions form throughout the world in different cultures - this will not change the facts about what God knows (His Omniscience).<br /><br />Claiming it is all subjective does NOT address where subjectivity actually lines up with objectivity (the facts, truth and reality of this universe which exist in actuality independent of our deceptions).<br /><br />Question everything.Breckminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16059206540177008895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2088312501194005192010-06-28T19:40:54.429-07:002010-06-28T19:40:54.429-07:00"Hense God doesnt exits like the rain does,be..."Hense God doesnt exits like the rain does,because rain stays rain and always exactly the same wherever it happen to fall."<br /><br />What you're not seeing is that all of creation (life) is the so called "rain" in the analogy. God is not the rain...anymore than causes for the weather or "rain dancing" is the rain.<br /><br />My analogy is regarding "belief" in what causes the rain. It is NOT about the "rain" existing verses "God" existing.Breckminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16059206540177008895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-40243721269770967532010-06-28T19:32:20.156-07:002010-06-28T19:32:20.156-07:00"And forget faithful cant honestly claim any ..."And forget faithful cant honestly claim any "common sense" ...Because if faithful honestly had "common sense" faith might be "christianity universally" like atheism is universally plain atheism."<br /><br />The common sense is NOT Christianity... it is in being wise enough to identify when scientists are behaving COMPLETELY foolish. It is in being wise enough to see clearly that the primordial soup will NOT produce blue green algae NOR any sort of prokaryote or eukaryote no matter how many times you strike it with lighting. The common sense is in being honest enough to identify that the very conditions necessary to create various chemicals that make up life would completely destroy any chance at abiogenesis. The common sense is to be wise enough to know that Information comes from Intelligence...that factories don't build themselves. That IF-THEN algorithmic programming does just magically program itself via some ridiculous form of unobserved aspect of "natural selection" (which SHOULD BE based on what is observable and NOT a violation of basic entropy). The common sense is in seeing all of the actual EVIDENCE that is continually denied because of circular reasoning and circular definitions with regards to REQUIRING natural explanations when you have "assumed" materialism in the first place. The common sense is in identifying how you are actually defining the empirical world as so called "natural" and completely ignoring the logical possibility that all of creation is sustained by an Infinite Creator by His Infinite Order and Power. The common sense is in NOT denying all the evidence that first leads to agnostic theism. The common sense is in allowing theistic implication in science instead of being painfully BIASED against it.<br />The common sense is in clearly "seeing" that life is far too complex to have ever originated without Intelligence and anyone who believes there is no Creator is just fooling themselves with 'aw-theistic' assumptions based on circular reasoning (which don't allow theistic implication).<br /><br />The common sense is in identifying when someone is really actually appealing to ignorance when in fact they aren't claiming they don't know the answer...that only YOU are the one claiming you can't know the answer because you have eliminated the correct answer with your philosophy in science that excludes theistic implication.<br /><br />The common sense is NOT about the specifics of faith regarding Christianity...the common sense is in knowing that there is "a" Creator. The common sense is in allowing CURRENT positive data which is falsifiable to allow to speak volumes of common sense with regards to IF-THEN algorithmic programming, complex mechanical working systems and biochemical functions, and the actual nature of information itself (not just a complexity argument).<br /><br />Yes. The common sense is in knowing that all of these cognitive and conscious beings are NOT just here by accident...<br /><br />but we actually have a purpose.<br /><br />Part of that purpose is accountability and the basic observation in this world is that there are consequences for actions.<br /><br />Question everything WITH common sense.Breckminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16059206540177008895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82154664650324091742010-06-28T14:00:56.688-07:002010-06-28T14:00:56.688-07:00I don't see anyone here addressing the first p...I don't see anyone here addressing the first premise of the OTF that religious belief is a cultural by-product and one need to test the truth of their faith claims against the hypothesis that they are cultural presuppositions.<br /><br />I don't think the OTF asks anyone to assume atheism but only to assume that circumstances of one's birth are strong inputs into what one believes.<br /><br />John's appeal to antrhopology is an illustration of this.<br /><br />Why is it that 97% of Thai people admit a Buddhist supernaturalism with Hindu ancestor-worship-syncretism? What is the probability a person will accept this form of spirituality true to the exemption of other forms if they are born in Thailand?<br /><br />The same is true for Christianity and the West. <br /><br />I know when I studied in Thailand I marveled at the practice of building "Spirit Houses" in one's backyard. These "Spirit Houses" are part of the supernatural practice of the Thai and they are not strange to one who sees life with that culture. I however looked at the probability of one's ancestors living as a spirit in a a tiny house atop a pole in one's backyard as nothing more than superstition and myth because I was not raised in that culture. I didn't see the "Spirit House" for what the Thai saw the "Spirit House" to be.<br /><br />We all have these different perspectives based on the culture in which we were raised.<br /><br />I experienced the same thing when I was a practicing Christian and lived in the American South. The Christianity practiced there was not the same religion my emergent-church experience from the North was. It was less inclined to intellectual debate and more inclined to large revival type worship. If I mentioned the difference my Southern friends looked at me with confusion. They couldn't "see" it. They were looking at Christianity through a particular culture as was I.<br /><br />The OTF invites a person to see the culture in which they were raised as an artificial experiential-organizing tool. It challenges one to look at their holy precepts as I looked at the "Spirit House" or revival worship and determine a religious presuppositions' probable truth.<br /><br />It doesn't demand you doubt your faith but it demands you look at your faith as a cultural construct and then see how your culture has informed your instinctive faith defense.<br /><br />I took the OTF after reading John's blog and realized that many of my religious precepts were built on the same type of cultural bias a Thai builds a "Spirit House". I was pretty distraught for a time but then drifted to agnosticism and then atheism and now see that for me to proclaim that I know the only viable version of the spiritual unknown is nothing more than ethnocentrism and cultural arrogance.<br /><br />Are you willing to test the culture by which you see things?<br /><br />That to me is the OTF. <br /><br />I don't know what your conclusion would be. <br /><br />Mine was agnosticism and then atheism.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15657598456196932490noreply@blogger.com