Religion & Confusion

Recent fire at our new location. 

My final post in review of God In The Conversation.

In Chapter 6: Confused by No Gods, The writings of Richard Dawkins are discussed. John Smed writes: 'Dawkins argues that mankind's only hope is to face the truths of science and get rid of delusion.' (40). The author replies to Dr. Dawkins: 'Dawkins assumes most scientists agree with him. In fact a great many scientists believe in God. In a 2014 Religion in Science (Italics my add). International study, only 38% of scientists believe there is a conflict between science and religion. BBC research in 2004 revealed that only 39% do not believe in God, 21% say they don't know.' (41).

Based on those statistics, 40% would have some kind of belief in God. This is a decent and reasonable percentage of scientists, although not a majority.

As I noted, in two archived posts on Satire Und Theology, I do not find Dr. Dawkins views in regard to religious studies and philosophy convincing.

Goodreads

 '“It is often said, mainly by the 'no-contests', that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic. At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal's wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?” ― Richard Dawkins'

There is not historical documentation from many sources over many years from different geographical areas for fairies at the bottom of a garden.

There is Biblical historical documentation of approximately 3500 years of actual persons, from various regions who experienced God. There are scribes, prophets, apostles and of course the resurrected Jesus Christ who are actual documented persons. This is connected to the Church Fathers and their writings. There is considerable historical and modern scholarship in regard to the historicity of both the Hebrew Bible and New Testament.

I conclude: The Biblical documentation would still be actual even if the Scripture contained some falsehoods, meaning a false comparison and false analogy is presented.

I view the original autographs as inspired by God through writers and inerrant.

Definition of False Analogy:

False Analogy

In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P.
---

The Appendix of the God In the Conversation discusses Bringing God Into the Conversation.

Love people. (111), Expect to make a friend. (112), Put the person first, not their argument (112), Discern where God is speaking. (113), are examples. These are theological and evangelical approaches I personally use and find very helpful in a gospel context. Honest and open worldview dialogue is encouraged, while praying at the same time.

SMED, JOHN F. (2016) God In the Conversation, Prayer Current, Vancouver.

Finding my religion

Sunset

SMED, JOHN F. (2016) God In the Conversation, Prayer Current, Vancouver.

Quote:

'When it comes to finding a religion people get confused. There are too many options. Religions seem to run in every direction. There is pantheism, New Age, the Dali Lama, agnosticism and atheism - as well as the major world religions. Christianity is divided between Catholics and Protestants - and a hundred varieties within the two. Without a road map, religions diverge and merge, ending up in an undifferentiated tangle.' (33).

The text provides a reasonable answer:

'I know I cannot think my way to God. Prayer connects me with God and put things together.' (35).

This followed up with:

'Do you think you might be interested in the prayer life of Jesus?' (35).

Prayer Current
---

I realize that within Christianity there is also Orthodox and Non-denominational traditions, but the text is informative and like this website, not an exhaustive textbook.

According to the Biblical model, God can only be 'known personally' through revelation. Romans 1: 17 for example. This is contrasted with God being 'known about' which is also discussed in Romans 1.

Romans 1:17

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed [a]from faith to faith; as it is written, “[b]But the righteous man shall live by faith.”

Footnotes:
a. Romans 1:17 Or by
b. Romans 1:17 Or But he who is righteous by faith shall live

Righteousness and legal justification is provided by Jesus Christ's work of atonement and resurrection to those believers in Christ. It is revealed to those chosen (Romans and Ephesians), those that are believers, and not discovered through reason and speculation alone (although it is reasonable).

Religious speculation can provide some truth, making philosophy of religion a valid academic pursuit. But in at least some agreement with Kant from Critique of Pure Reason and related, in that regard, God can be reasoned as existing, intuitively and/or perhaps Kant would think God can be reasoned by deduction related to morality; although Kant was not a supporter of speculative religious doctrine, as he viewed it. Revelation from God in Scripture and resulting claims made within could perhaps be tied to Kantian concepts and intuition arising from empirical sensations. Kant (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006: 66).

I disagree with Kant in regard to the historical revelation. The infinite can make self reasonably known to the finite. In Scripture, God works through prophets, apostles and scribes. Therefore, Christ’s exclusivity claim of John 14: 6, can be tied to the idea above, as in whatever God reveals would be the exclusive truth and the rest speculation, some true, some false.

This view of Scripture along with prayer would be useful in working through various religious and philosophical worldviews in pursuit of a reasonable explanation and ultimately, the truth.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1997) Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Mary Gregor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1898)(2006) The Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, London, Longmans, Green, and Co.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1791)(2001) ‘On The Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in Theodicy’, in Religion and Rational Theology, Translated by George di Giovanni and Allen Wood, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

SMED, JOHN F. (2016) God In the Conversation, Prayer Current, Vancouver.

Very Dynamic (New search)

Burnaby

Recent website employment has me researching website design and templates. I thought the BBC.com website, was well-designed. I tried to find within Blogger, a significantly similar design, and then customized the new templates for both of my websites. I decided on switching to a 'Dynamic' template. I have chosen 'Magazine' as the default view, but 'Classic' represents a useful throwback to traditional blog views.

The 'Search' function is a vast improvement to older templates. I previously for years had to research my archived articles through the Blogger Dashboard or by a search engine.

To search, for example 'Blackburn', on this site, an often cited secular, philosophical source, type in 'Blackburn' in the search box. The preview options, and the amount of preview options are listed, presently as 'Show all 118 results'. These can be followed by pressing enter or clicking on the results. This takes the reader to a new page with results presented in preview article form.

In denial of the preceding

Instagram Vancouver

In denial of the preceding

September 1, 2016 article revised on May 1, 2023. Placed on academia.eu

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Cited

'...the fallacy of denying the antecedent (precedes from, my add) is for those who do not really care if their brain is going forwards or backwards. It does not admit the possibility that different events can produce similar outcomes.

If I eat too much, I'll be ill. Since I have not eaten too much, I will not be ill' (81).

Other events can bring about the same results and the event that is assumed to have taken place, did not take place. (81).

Illness could be caused by, for example:

Food poisoning.

A virus.

Bacteria.

Cited

'If he's slow, he'll lose.'

'Since he isn't slow, he won't lose'. (81)

Pirie states he might just be stupid. (81). He might lose to someone that is faster.

'Denying the antecedent is a fallacy because it assigns only one cause to an event for which there might be several.' (82). The are other possible causes.

Pirie reasons that this is a conservative status quo fallacy. (82). In my mind, this is another fallacy used by those prone to intellectually lazy thinking.

The concept of antecedent is also related to counterfactuals, which means they are contrary-to-fact conditionals, that presuppose that the antecedent is false. (163).

'If Hitler had invaded Germany, Germany would have won.' (163).

My example

God existence = No problems of evil

If God exists

Then there is no problems of evil

This of course rejects Biblical revelation explaining God's reasoning for willingly allowing evil and his eternal plan (Ephesians 1) for the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ to save those in Christ, and restore creation. This also rejects theological and philosophical explanations within defences and theodicy. 

I can reason that some critics may conclude that my example assumes an informal and not formal fallacy. But, the existence of problems of evil does not logically cancel out the existence of God.

Denying the antecedent: Logically fallacious 

References: Kiersky, J. H., & Caste, N. J. (1995) Thinking Critically: Techniques for Logical Reasoning, West Publishing Company.

Cited

'Logical Form:

If P, then Q.

Not P. 

Therefore, not Q. 

Example #1: 

If it barks, it is a dog. 

It doesn’t bark. 

Therefore, it’s not a dog.' 

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

DAVIS, WAYNE A. (1996) ‘Counterfactuals', in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

FOULKES, FRANCIS (1989) Ephesians, Grand Rapids, Inter-Varsity Press.

HASKER, WILLIAM (2003) ‘Counterfactuals and Evil’, in Philosophia Christi, Volume 5, Number 1, pp. 235-249. La Mirada, California, Biola University.

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy)

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Logically fallacious

Denying the antecedent: Logically fallacious 

References

KIERSKY, J.H. & Caste, N. J. (1995) Thinking Critically: Techniques for Logical Reasoning, West Publishing Company.