RE: The Place of Reason by thinkforyourself - written 27/07/2010 23:29:46
Hi David

You are not playing a fair game. You presuppose a supernatural being which you believe has always existed and whose origin can not be explained. It’s kind of ‘well God can do anything’ ‘He has always existed’ It makes any further discussion pointless. I mean I could say a huge space turtle was responsible for everything. It has always existed and requires no explanation for its beginning. It speaks to me, guides me in my life and I ‘know’ it is real. I have a special book which tells of wonderful things and proves that the space turtle is real. Many of my friends believe in it too.
You cannot disprove my turtle god. My god is just as valid or invalid as yours.

Human reason is not the final word but it’s all we have.

I think you underestimate the power of reason and evidence. Surely you use it everyday? To prefer a book written thousands of years ago over modern reasoning is well bizarre. I mean do you hold the same view with medicine? Should we ditch the MRI scanners and go back to blood letting. Or ditch disease theory and blame evil spirits?

Would you have the same faith say with a bank account on the internet? No you too would be a rationalist I suspect and check out the account to see if it was legitimate and what evidence there was. Basically was it real? How can people use these techniques every day the throw it out when in comes to religion?

Evidence even with the limits of the human brain is still far superior to faith based on zero evidence. Repeated testing and scrutiny usually get one pretty close to a darn good answer. This is made stronger when others can independently come to the same findings. This is something you seem to be well passing off as if it is nothing. The modern would not exist today if it was not for this process.

Do you believe in Zeus? No? Is there no evidence? Then you too are a Zeus atheist.
Human reasoning maybe flawed perhaps but light years better than… God exists and wrote the Bible. We know this because it says so in the Bible. Circular too right.





David Silversides wrote (27/07/2010 12:53:29):

Can't seem to get a 'reply' facility at present, so I'll start a new topic, but it is meant as a reply to Ged & Co.

We disagree on our presupositions.  Your starting point is that human reason must be final on the assumption that man is not a fallen creature whose thinking is prejudiced by sin.  There is no rational basis for this and your basic presupposition contains an inherent cotradiction.  The assumption that human reason is reliable is unreasonable.  That men make this irrational assumption is easily accounted for if one believes the Bible and the account of man's fall and the fact that the essence of sin is the desire to be 'as gods' (Gen.3:5).  For a Christian, the whole atheistic approach to science entails a pretence - that man is independent of God for his existence and the knowledge and purpose of it.

The Christian presupposition has three main strands: 1. The God revealed in the Bible is.  2.  The Bible is his word.  3. Fallen man is absolutely dependent upon a Sovereign work of the Holy Spirit of God in his heart (which the Bible calls being 'born again'), in order to be willing and able to rightly receive the message of the Bible as the word of God.  The place of reason is as the God-given means through which, when a man's sinful nature is renewed by the Holy Spirit, he not only understands and admits the truth of God's word but gladly embraces it as such.  Human reason is receptive, not legislative.

Yes, the Christian's presupposition is a closed circle, but it is not contrary to reason whereas the atheistic rationalist's is.



| BACK | RETURN TO CALEBFOUNDATION.ORG |