|
|
Due to spam and off-topic content, these forums are being phased out and replaced with new great books forums. Please join us!
Posted by Eden of Mind on May 13, 19100 at 01:39:47:
In Reply to: Sacred Ground posted by Eden of Mind on May 06, 19100 at 07:07:26:
I'm sorry if this post comes up three or four times. My computer is doing strange things.
* * *
Well, I understand why you might agree with Mr. Hume. He was a brilliant philosopher who defended
most of what modern science stands for. But, brilliant philosophers make mistakes. Again, Hume
could not see that parts of his philosophy were self-refuting, while others were question begging
(arguing in a circle). He committed errors of thinking just as anyone else does. Perhaps you should try
reading some of the critical commentaries on his work...
This is something that I try to do often; to read the views of my opponents with an open, yet critical,
frame of mind. It would be foolish of me to neglect them. I am sorry that I should be the one to
encourage you to read a work by a reductionist who believes that "faith" is the product of chemicals.
Such things are truly Damoclesian (don't go looking for it, I made that word up). What I mean to say
is that such a theory is suspended above one's head with only a single thread to sustain its precarious
position. The theory threatens to fall upon the adherent at any moment. If Christian belief is purely
based upon a chemical impetus then atheism, the choice not to believe, would also be caused by
chemicals, albeit a different combination of them. If I believe in Christ because of a certain
combination of chemicals, you fail to believe in Him because of a different combination. This
philosophy becomes self-defeating, for the scientist who is conducting it would surely have arrived at
his conclusions about Christian belief through a combination of chemicals, making such a theory
meaningless; based upon random natural factors beyond his control. The problem of which of us, if
any, were correct would become impossible to answer. No, I believe that such things are a waste of
time, but, perhaps you have a counter-argument...
At any rate, I keep forgetting to answer one of your charges and I think I should do so before I forget
again. Faith is not irrational, as you have claimed. Such things were handed down to us from
Kierkegaard and I think that you should do a bit more research on what the Christian refers to as
"faith." There are, in fact, at least two different meanings of the word, "Faith." The ancient Greeks had
a word for the Christian meaning of faith (pestuo) but English does not. We do not have a verb form
of "faith," no one can begin "faithing." So, we have substituted "belief" for "faith," however this word
does not do "pestuo" justice. If you would like, I can explain this further, but I would advise you to
stop claiming that "faith is the opposite of reason." It is not. Although popular movies like the third in
a series of Indiana Jones movies has Harrison Ford stepping out into an apparent gorge in "faith," this
is not at all what the Christian means by it. I don't have much time left, I am working on borrowed
minutes. I would like, at a later date (perhaps tonight), to speak with you about my motives for
introducing the life of Christ as evidence for the existence of GOD. You may not understand right
now, but I did not expect you to accept that as evidence and was instead introducing it for many other
reasons. These things are best explained fully and so I will say no more. I hope that we can, in a way,
begin from the beginning and discuss our world views as equals.
Thank you for all of the time and effort that you have exerted in this debate...
Eden of Mind