The comments of Sean Choi, AKA the metaphysician, on this blog, are very interesting.
1 comment:
Anonymous
said...
If I may, I would like to post these two paragraphs by Sean on the Secular Outpost with some questions. Maybe he could address my inquiries.
Sean said, "At this point the atheist (or anyone else) could rightly ask: But why think that? And note that the above answer seems to presuppose (!) that his vantilian TA successfully accomplishes what it sets out to do: to show that only under Christian theism does uniformity of nature, logic, morality, etc. make sense.
So, whether Bahnsen's model of self-deception actually is applicable to professed atheists crucially depends on the prior question of whether his TA is successful. I think that it is not."
But is it necessary to based the NA thesis on an 'all-powerful' TA or was this just Bahnsen? Why would one need to base the NA thesis on the supposed 'silver bullet' of a TA?
I do not hold that the TA is a silver bullet, but it seems this claim (NA thesis) could be established by one's interpretation of Scripture and/or based upon a cumulative argumentative scheme. Now I know that the NA thesis being solely based upon Scripture would not be convincing to an atheist as they don't accept the Bible, but it would seem useful (if that's already your interpretation of Scripture) in a type of worldview apologetic to keep *some* atheists from averting the burden of proof.
1 comment:
If I may, I would like to post these two paragraphs by Sean on the Secular Outpost with some questions. Maybe he could address my inquiries.
Sean said, "At this point the atheist (or anyone else) could rightly ask: But why think that? And note that the above answer seems to presuppose (!) that his vantilian TA successfully accomplishes what it sets out to do: to show that only under Christian theism does uniformity of nature, logic, morality, etc. make sense.
So, whether Bahnsen's model of self-deception actually is applicable to professed atheists crucially depends on the prior question of whether his TA is successful. I think that it is not."
But is it necessary to based the NA thesis on an 'all-powerful' TA or was this just Bahnsen? Why would one need to base the NA thesis on the supposed 'silver bullet' of a TA?
I do not hold that the TA is a silver bullet, but it seems this claim (NA thesis) could be established by one's interpretation of Scripture and/or based upon a cumulative argumentative scheme. Now I know that the NA thesis being solely based upon Scripture would not be convincing to an atheist as they don't accept the Bible, but it would seem useful (if that's already your interpretation of Scripture) in a type of worldview apologetic to keep *some* atheists from averting the burden of proof.
Post a Comment