|
|
#21
02-03-2007, 06:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: What about \'recovered religious\'?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] maybe a better question for NotReady would be...What is a "fundamental worldview? [/ QUOTE ] I like Frame's definition: [ QUOTE ] Earlier we defined an ultimate presupposition as "a belief over which no other takes precedence", or, more profoundly, as a "basic commitment of the heart." [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] can you give a couple examples of such fundamenta worldviews? by this definition, I can't see Christianity or the belief in a god as a fundamental wordlview... for the individual, the only fundamental wordlview seems to be.."My senses reflect (at least to some degree) reality."... this is of course circular, but there is no way around it. even for a Christian, this would come above any other belief, since those beliefs are based off of their senses. a follow up question would be...If we have a circular ultimate presupposition of this nature, do subsequent beliefs hold ANY merit? Do we have the right to judge anything as more or less likely to be true? a fundamental axiom will always be circular IMO...but where we go from there can be judged based on that axiom. and as I already alluded to, I think we all must hold the same fundamental axiom. 
|
|
#22
02-03-2007, 06:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What about \'recovered religious\'?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] what "current beliefs" do you know he holds? [/ QUOTE ] He must be a member of Pope Dawkins' church of the selfish gene. [ QUOTE ] atheism is not a belief, it is a lack thereof. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think it's possible for a human not to have a fundamental worldview. I don't think it's an option. We are made that way, we can't stop thinking, we can't stop believing in something. [/ QUOTE ] we're not talkind about a fundamental worldview..we're talking about the specific case for a belief that something exists... I do not hold the belief that santa clause exists...do you consider that as my fundamental worldview? [/ QUOTE ] This is true in most specific cases, but it isn't necessarily true. It must be the case (at least, thats my argument) that belief in the divinity of the Bible is a core, fundamental belief or axiom. There is no other way, as far as I can tell. Just because most Christians don't think this is true doesn't mean it makes sense for them to think that. [/ QUOTE ] how can this belief be a fundamental belief or axiom? How do they come to that belief? I can't see how that can in any way be an independent self evident truth.
|
|
#23
02-03-2007, 07:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What about \'recovered religious\'?
[ QUOTE ]
for the individual, the only fundamental wordlview seems to be.."My senses reflect (at least to some degree) reality."... [/ QUOTE ] I think you are confusing temporal and logical. My most fundamental presupposition is the Bible is God's word, and of course includes all doctrines in the Bible. I judge all else by the Bible. I have to know what the Bible says through my senses, hearing or seeing, so that would have temporal priority, but it isn't the standard by which I judge truth nor is it the principle to which I am most committed. [ QUOTE ] If we have a circular ultimate presupposition of this nature, do subsequent beliefs hold ANY merit? Do we have the right to judge anything as more or less likely to be true? [/ QUOTE ] All subsequent propositions are judged by your most fundamental or ultimate presupposition. If reason is ultimate then all propositions must conform to reason, etc.
|
|
#24
02-04-2007, 03:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What about \'recovered religious\'?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] what "current beliefs" do you know he holds? [/ QUOTE ] He must be a member of Pope Dawkins' church of the selfish gene. [ QUOTE ] atheism is not a belief, it is a lack thereof. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think it's possible for a human not to have a fundamental worldview. I don't think it's an option. We are made that way, we can't stop thinking, we can't stop believing in something. [/ QUOTE ] we're not talkind about a fundamental worldview..we're talking about the specific case for a belief that something exists... I do not hold the belief that santa clause exists...do you consider that as my fundamental worldview? [/ QUOTE ] This is true in most specific cases, but it isn't necessarily true. It must be the case (at least, thats my argument) that belief in the divinity of the Bible is a core, fundamental belief or axiom. There is no other way, as far as I can tell. Just because most Christians don't think this is true doesn't mean it makes sense for them to think that. [/ QUOTE ] how can this belief be a fundamental belief or axiom? How do they come to that belief? I can't see how that can in any way be an independent self evident truth. [/ QUOTE ] This is the obvious next question once we get them to admit they accept the divinity of the Bible as an unsupported axiom.
|
|
#25
02-04-2007, 03:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What about \'recovered religious\'?
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it's possible for a human not to have a fundamental worldview. I don't think it's an option. We are made that way, we can't stop thinking, we can't stop believing in something. [/ QUOTE ] I accept that you believe it to be so. However, my experience tells me that it is possible for a human not to have a fundamental worldview. It is an option. We can stop thinking, we can stop believing in something.
|
|
#26
02-04-2007, 03:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What about \'recovered religious\'?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] It must be the case (at least, thats my argument) that belief in the divinity of the Bible is a core, fundamental belief or axiom... Just because most Christians don't think this is true doesn't mean it makes sense for them to think that. [/ QUOTE ] I think most Christians do think this. They may not always put it into philosophical or even theological terms but I think they understand that the Bible governs all their thought. The old phrase "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it", expresses that idea. Of course, whether the Bible actually says the subject under consideration is a separate question, but giving the Bible pre-eminence is common throughout the history of the church. What I find is that most non-theists don't know they have fundamental presuppositions and don't know how to defend them even if identified. [/ QUOTE ] But I do. At least, I know I have fundamental preconceived notions, and I know better than to try and defend them. So where does this leave me in the 'flaming Christians who defend the divinity of the Bible in a circular fashion' controversy? Am I still ok? I feel like I am.
|
|
#27
02-04-2007, 04:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What about \'recovered religious\'?
[ QUOTE ]
So where does this leave me in the 'flaming Christians who defend the divinity of the Bible in a circular fashion' controversy? [/ QUOTE ] I guess it would make you inconsistent if you said Christianity is false because it uses circular reasonng.
|
|
#28
02-04-2007, 05:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What about \'recovered religious\'?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] So where does this leave me in the 'flaming Christians who defend the divinity of the Bible in a circular fashion' controversy? [/ QUOTE ] I guess it would make you inconsistent if you said Christianity is false because it uses circular reasonng. [/ QUOTE ] circular reasoning doesn't make anything false, it makes it illogical. which of course is not a problem if you don't consider logic as an axiom.
|
|
#30
02-04-2007, 06:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What about \'recovered religious\'?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] So where does this leave me in the 'flaming Christians who defend the divinity of the Bible in a circular fashion' controversy? [/ QUOTE ] I guess it would make you inconsistent if you said Christianity is false because it uses circular reasonng. [/ QUOTE ] Seriously, this is like the third time you've said this, and it seems to be completely unsupported. WHY am I being inconsistent? I don't hold any circular beliefs, I don't accept some things based on circular reasoning and dismiss others, so why am I being inconsistent?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
