 |
| Kelly Burchert: Facebook, today |
New York Daily News February 2
'Interesting point, counter-point on religion'
My friend Dr. Jennifer Lloyd (UBC) sent this to me on Facebook.
My comments
In humanity, we all have faith because none of us have 100% certainty. Absolute certainty would require one to be infinite.
I can have reasonable certainty that I exist, but not absolute 100% certainty. I will admit I had an adviser and professor at Trinity Western University that disagreed with my view. He stated that the gospel was 100% absolutely certain. But I held to and hold to, that only God has absolute certainty. I have reasonable certainty in regard to the gospel as being true.
During my MPhil/PhD theses work, when I had to study Kant and Wittgenstein, I developed partly through the Cambridge Philosophy Dictionary, an understanding that there is humanly, no absolute, 100% certainty.
As well, reading Kant I did reasonably consider Kant's views on the noumenon, plural noumena realm. I can grant that the non-empirical spiritual realm is speculative and that God could not be known in a personal context by speculation alone. But, contrary to Kant, I do reason that both revelation leading to theology and philosophy of religion can contain reasonable certainty.
Reasonable certainty is that internally and externally premises and conclusion (s) are consistent and not disproved by counter propositions and conclusions.
In regards to the gospel, it is internally consistent as the Scripture is consistent. There is significant and sufficient manuscript evidence extant and the writings of Church Fathers, combined with effective scholarship.
Externally, in my view, no other worldview represented by premises and conclusion (s) is superior or disproves the gospel, the historical atonement and resurrection of Christ and related. Philosophy of religion and philosophical speculation could reasonably lead to knowledge in regard to the existence of God. As a matter of admittance, I did study atheistic, agnostic and critical perspectives for my British studies, as well as various Christian views.
Agreed, there is scientific empirical fact, such as the law of gravity. I can have reasonable faith in the law of gravity. There is also philosophical science, like transitional forms in Darwinian evolution, which are not established empirical fact within current scientific philosophy. My Manchester philosophy of religion professor granted that transitional forms is scientific theory only. Although he held to it as true.
A belief in one trinitarian God over 2999 other gods, is if properly and reasonably held, based primarily on Biblical revelation leading to theology and secondarily, philosophy of religion and philosophical speculation. I prefer the term 'first cause' over 'the prime mover', but I get the point from the video. Clarification: The trinity cannot be reasonable known other than via revelation. However, through reason and philosophy, one could for example, deduce that the infinite, eternal God required distinctions of personality within nature in order to be a personal being. Granted, within the eternal it would be timeless and all would be known within relationship.
Philosophical speculation on its own may reasonably lead someone to theism, but it will not lead someone to the revealed gospel (Romans, Hebrews, John, 1 John).
Mr. Gervais reasonably, does have faith in regard to science and philosophy.
Even if we grant that virtually, without infinite knowledge and certainty, he needs little faith to believe in the empirical, he needs faith to hold to non-empirical science and scientific philosophy.
Mr. Gervais also has faith, not fact that there is no evidence or knowledge of God, because he appears to assume that only empirical knowledge will suffice. This is very problematic as by definition, the immaterial, spiritual God will not be empirically provable. This is a common mistake of some agnostics, atheists and critics. They dismiss the religious history of revealed Scripture as a type of knowledge. They may dismiss philosophical speculation for theism and accept philosophical speculation against theism.
Mr. Gervais risks scientism, which humanist, British philosopher, Simon Blackburn describes in his Oxford Philosophy Dictionary.
From Oxford Scientism: '1 a: a method or doctrine regarded as characteristic of scientists b the use of practice of this. 2 often derogatory, an excessive belief in or application of scientific method. Oxford (1995: 1236).'
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Woo
 |
| Mark Morrey: Facebook, today |
No comments:
Post a Comment