> But consider separating what Christians describe from your > characterization of it. If I made the statement that faith in Christ > is not the same as strong emotions or feelings, and you continue to > posit: > > > it seems to me that what they are talking > > about is just their strong emotions or feelings > > I think that would articulate a strawman position.
I'm not accusing you or any ACRD Christians of speaking of it in those terms. Sorry if I was confusing about that. I'm trying to describe what I see in the behavior and rhetoric of some Christians, reading between the lines of the evasive rhetoric. You could say I'm misunderstanding or misinterpreting what you're saying. But I'm not accusing you of saying something you aren't saying. I'm just accusing you of denying what you seem to be doing. I'm accusing you of finding evasive euphemisms and denying my fair characterization of the method by which you actually reach the decision to have faith in Christ or the Bible or other "spiritual" matters. > > You and Joe and other Christians try to describe this process > > in terms other than "feelings" or "emotions" or "process" or "method." > > The terms you and others use are often circuitous. For example, > > someone might say that faith is what leads them to the truth. But > > faith isn't really a method of acquiring a truth. (Yay! You might like > > that statement for a second until I continue this thought.) Faith is > > the position that a person comes to at the end of a process, a > > decision to feel trust for the Bible or God or a friend or a relative > > or a plumber, after using logic or reason or personal experience or > > gut-reaction or "intuition" or feelings or emotions or [what other > > options are there?] to reach that conclusion. > > > (Yes, faith in God is obviously different from faith that a plumber > > isn't going to rip you off. That doesn't make what I'm saying untrue > > or unclear.) > > Well, I consider a pretended neutrality to not be tenable. As Bahnsen noted: > > "At the most fundamental level of everyone's thinking and beliefs > there are primary convictions about reality, man, the world, > knowledge, truth, behavior, and such things. Convictions about which > all other experience is organized, interpreted, and applied. Dr. Stein > has such presuppositions, so do I, and so do all of you. And it is > these presuppositions which determine what we accept by ordinary > reasoning all of our reasoning - even about reasoning itself. " > > To be clear, I've articulated that the objectivity of the standard of > proof used to evaluate such claims is of a fundamental importance. > Bahnsen notes that atheist world-views have a double standard to point > out Christian presuppositions (which Bahnsen acknowledges), but then > presume that the atheistic position is "neutral" or "without" similar > presuppositions. If I have a bias that God does not exist, it goes against what I was taught by parents, family, most of my friends and community, the majority of our society. How is that a "presupposition"? And when exactly does an initial supposition turn into a "presupposition"? It's not like two year olds are having a lot of critical thoughts about God and reason and epistemology. Even when parents or people try to instill those biases, a kid re-assesses some questions while growing up. Plenty of people who grew up one way have had second thoughts in their teen years or later and changed their position, some away from religion, some towards religion, some from one religion to a different one. And it's not just atheists who talk about a bias among Christians. Maybe you haven't articulated this position, maybe I'm misunderstanding other Christians who tried to articulate their position, but I have heard some Christians claim that a person must start with a bias towards God or the Bible or Christianity in order to believe in them. That anyone who tries to take a neutral position or tries to throw too much reason at the question won't get to the truth, because they must (paradoxically) start with "faith" or a bias in favor of the question, in order to decide the question. Is that what you meant by no one really being neutral? That people who think of themselves as "neutral" are actually forming a bias against belief in God? > > It's been a while since we have argued about this. I'm sorry if I'm > > asking you to repeat yourself, but could you explain how you or other > > Christians arrive at the truth about the Bible or God? > > I don't believe "how" is adequate to explain what is instead the > personal activity of a particular "who": God's Holy Spirit. As the > Statement notes: > > "The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to > us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its > meaning." Let's say there is a confused person who honestly isn't sure whether to believe the Bible or not. This person strives to understand, studies Scripture, talks it over with other people. None of the actions this person takes will necessarily get her to the truth, because that would be some kind of "method" or "process." If she comes to understand the truth, it's only because the Holy Spirit gave her inward witness and opened her mind to understand it. So what is your conclusion about this person if she honestly, humbly strives to understand, but she comes to the conclusion that the Bible is not true? Wouldn't that mean the Holy Spirit did not give her inward witness or open her mind to understand? > So I don't consider that any determinism, algorithm, process, decision > tree or method is adequate to address the issue. In that sense, I > consider your question categorically ill-formed. As the pirates supposedly used to exclaim, "Damn me!" Because apparently I will be damned, not for failing to consider these questions seriously or earnestly enough, but because the Holy Spirit has not given me inward witness or opened my eyes to understand Him. > > (Even a little > > truth or limited truth, not The Ultimate Truth about everything.) You > > have ruled out the use of feelings or emotions as a tool to help you > > access the truth. > > Or I note that neither feelings or emotions are an adequate standard of > measure. Okay, but are you saying feelings or emotions can be effective tools to help you access the truth, but neither of them are adequate to measure whether you found the truth? I'm just quibbling because you quibbled a little. It sounds like you weren't denying my statement, but making a separate point. > Or rather, process has specific limitations that makes it not an > adequate standard of measure. Regardless of how we got the truth, there is no process to measure whether it really is the truth? We just know it's the truth? > > I understand that you don't agree with the ways I've described it, or > > some of the terms I've used. Could you explain how > > I don't explain "how", because "how" is categorically invalid to > explain a "who". "The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning." It's not very clear or helpful, but that is a "how." You can't even recognize a process after you quote one. > > Do Christians ever have > > moments of doubt where they need to consider a subject or re-read some > > part of Scripture or re-read a religious article or sermon, because > > they are not sure whether to agree or disagree with it? Or is > > knowledge of the truth already within them somehow, and their > > perception of truth is clouded by some sin-related obstacle, which > > can't be cleared away by any "method" or "process" or "algorithm", > > etc? > > Well, I would note that the person of God's Spirit is free to > communicate truth to a believer in any manifold fashion that He > chooses. But method, process or algorithm is not a valid measure. Is there any valid measure? > > I'm trying to understand but I can't seem to. If I remember correctly, > > you might have even said that this kind of question is problematic, > > because there is no "how." That just doesn't make sense. > > Does the above help with this at all? It clarifies that even after you articulate a vague answer to "how", you deny that it can be discussed in terms of how. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "A Civil Religious Debate" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/a-civil-religious-debate?hl=en.
