tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post7347833686414046878..comments2024-03-29T07:36:41.429-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: The Problem of SaulBahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-88408315199400968622007-07-04T03:51:00.000-04:002007-07-04T03:51:00.000-04:00Peter,I see you’ve not changed much since we corre...Peter,<BR/><BR/>I see you’ve not changed much since we corresponded in the past. I was always surprised how easily you seemed to give up. <BR/><BR/>Peter: “I'll just get to the heart of the matter: you're not actually arguing here against God or Christianity but rather against a straw-man. In Christianity, Saul's conversion is anything but a model conversion.”<BR/><BR/>The point you raise here is completely compatible with the objection I have raised: it is <I>because</I> the conversion Saul is said to have experienced according to the storybook is so unique in comparison to how the vast majority if not all other Christians experience conversion, that it calls attention to itself in the first place, and consequently – for the reasons I have already indicated – that the Christian worldview brings itself under question. <BR/><BR/>Peter: “And God is not subject to the (your) principle of final causation.”<BR/><BR/>Then your god is simply not logical. That’s what you’re saying here if you are saying that your god does not apply the principle of final causation, for final causation is simply the identification of the most logical course of action given an intended outcome one wants to achieve. Your statement here means either that your god is incapable of determining the most logical course of action to achieve its goals (assuming it could have any goals), or that it knowingly thwarts the choice to follow the most logical course of action to achieve its goals in preference for something illogical, hit-or-miss or simply arbitrary (e.g., sending fallible human beings on a “great mission” over a period of several thousands of years, risking the proliferation of widespread heresies and false teachings, and needlessly losing many souls in the process). Beyond that, it could simply be that your god does not exist, and the conversion that Saul is said to have experienced remains confined to the storybook simply because it is a legend to begin with. You’ve provided nothing to rule out this last alternative.<BR/><BR/>Peter: “Saul's conversion was unique, and God Himself determined/determines the best possible means to the achieve the ends He desires.”<BR/><BR/>My objection grants (perhaps too generously, given the angle you have chosen to play) that your god is capable of determining the most logical course of action to achieve its goals. What you’re saying is that it either does not follow the most logical course of action to achieve its goals, or it simply has not set before itself the goal of reaching very many. As you say, Saul’s conversion was unique. How do you know this? You give no indication. My objection is at least compatible with the supposition that there are others besides Saul throughout history to whom your god has paid a personal visit. But have it your way if you like. That just means it played favorites with Saul. But this goes contrary to other claims in the bible, as I pointed out in my blog.<BR/><BR/>Peter: “And so you know, Saul did not accept Jesus Christ because of the unusual, unique, extraordinary events surrounding his conversion.”<BR/><BR/>It’s curious that you would go this far in denying the importance of Saul’s conversion experience to his acceptance of Jesus as his savior. It hardly seems justifiable given the emphasis that Acts itself puts on Saul’s conversion experience. It relates the story twice (chapters 9 and 22) and has Saul cite his experience before Agrippa as the key turning point in his spiritual life (chapter 26). It has always amused me what Christians will deny about their religion in order to defend it. It summons to mind the image of a snake devouring its own tail.<BR/><BR/>Peter: “He came to love Jesus Christ in the same way that all people do -- God Himself regenerated Saul's heart, brought life from death, granted him the gift of faith.”<BR/><BR/>I didn’t know that “all people” love Jesus Christ. Also, if it’s the case that “God Himself regenerated Saul’s heart,” why doesn’t it do this for everyone else? Again, we come back to the biblical notion that the Christian god is “no respecter of persons.” Why then would it choose to regenerate some, but not others? It’s favors some while despising others. It’s had a long history of doing this.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I think my point is clear now if it weren’t earlier: if the Christian god wants me to believe it exists, it knows what to do – it’s up to the Christian god, not up to me. For me to affirm its existence given what I do know, I would have to be dishonest. But since truth is more important to me than agreement, I go with honesty, not peer pressure.<BR/><BR/>Peter: “That's why Saul believed Jesus, that's why I'm a Christian, and that's what it would take for you to love God also.”<BR/><BR/>In other words, I’m not doing anything wrong, since there’s nothing I could do anyway to overcome my non-belief. It’s not up to me whether I believe or not, it’s up to the Christian god. If it wanted me to believe, what would stop me from believing? Certainly you don’t think that “sin” is stronger than your god’s will, do you? I ask this because most Christians I talk to, seem to think there’s something I’m doing on purpose by not believing. But if it’s up to the Christian god whether or not I believe, then nothing I do or choose to do is relevant in the matter. What could possibly trump the will of the Christian god? So on your view, I must be a non-believer precisely because your god wants me to be a non-believer. Consequently, I am doing the will of your god just by not believing. <BR/><BR/>Peter: “God must save you, Dawson.”<BR/><BR/>But most Christians say their god is under no obligation whatsoever. Do you suppose differently?<BR/><BR/>Peter: “I'll leave you with Him.”<BR/><BR/>He’s welcome to come over and have tea any time. All he has to do is show up, like he did for Saul. Why does he hide from me, Peter? What’s he afraid of? What’s he waiting for? I’m always ready to have guests over. I just ask that he not smell bad and behaves himself as a cordial guest. And please, leave the water in the water pots alone – I already have enough wine in the house.<BR/><BR/>So far, it appears that my objection endures all the points you’ve tried to bring up against it so far. In the meanwhile, Peter, I notice that you’ve offered nothing to help me distinguish between what you call “God” and what you may merely be imagining. Why is that? Is it really that hard for you, too?<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-65705168595818135302007-07-03T23:13:00.000-04:002007-07-03T23:13:00.000-04:00Hello Dawson.I'll just get to the heart of the mat...Hello Dawson.<BR/><BR/>I'll just get to the heart of the matter: you're not actually arguing here against God or Christianity but rather against a straw-man. In Christianity, Saul's conversion is anything but a model conversion. And God is not subject to the (your) principle of final causation. Saul's conversion was unique, and God Himself determined/determines the best possible means to the achieve the ends He desires. So I'm afraid you've wasted some time arguing against a position other than the Christian's.<BR/><BR/>And so you know, Saul did not accept Jesus Christ because of the unusual, unique, extraordinary events surrounding his conversion. He came to love Jesus Christ in the same way that all people do -- God Himself regenerated Saul's heart, brought life from death, granted him the gift of faith. That's why Saul believed Jesus, that's why I'm a Christian, and that's what it would take for you to love God also.<BR/><BR/>God must save you, Dawson. I'll leave you with Him.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03410277894552158218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-89901392463775986692007-07-03T09:01:00.000-04:002007-07-03T09:01:00.000-04:00Peter wrote: “Dawson, Dawson. I leave blogging beh...Peter wrote: “Dawson, Dawson. I leave blogging behind for a couple of years, I come back, and I find you're still reasoning in a circle. What's going on?!”<BR/><BR/>Hi Peter,<BR/><BR/>Welcome back to my blog. It’s good to hear from you again. I had wondered what happened to you.<BR/><BR/>Peter: “By the way, who took my old domain? (http://corneliusvantil.blogspot.com) Now it's "Raul, Raul, Raul" or something?”<BR/><BR/>Yes, I remember. <BR/><BR/>Peter: “Anyways, as to your thesis, let me just make a few points. First, you write about the thesis, "... the objection neither charges nor requires that the Christian god has any obligation to begin with." Yet, the thesis states: "... it should reveal itself to them in an obvious way... ." In an intellectually sober and fair moment, I think you'd admit you're sending conflicting messages here.”<BR/><BR/>There is no conflict here. There is a profound difference that you’re overlooking. I’ll clarify. When I point out that “the objection neither charges nor requires that the Christian god has any obligation <I>to begin with</I>,” what I mean is that the objection neither assumes nor requires that the Christian god has any a priori <I>duty</I> to save men, or to take measures which ensure their salvation. The objection, as I made clear in my paper (so I thought), simply grants the benefit of the doubt that the Christian god is capable of logically determining the best course of action given any hypothetical goal(s) one might attribute to it. This is not a matter of duty, but a matter of final causation. I.e., if outcome X is its goal (e.g., to save some or all men), then course of action Y (e.g., appearing before them, as given in the biblical precedent of the story of Saul and his fabled encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus) is the most logical course of action to take to ensure outcome X. The objection grants the Christian god the ability to determine such logical consequences, but does not in any way hold that the Christian is morally obliged to pursue outcome X. Given these distinctions, the word “should” the thesis statement could easily be replaced by words to the effect of “the logical thing to do would be to...”<BR/><BR/>Peter: “Second, you send another conflicting message since the thesis places God under obligation, contrary to your claim, to reveal Himself in a particular manner - "... as the book of Acts says it did to Saul ... ."<BR/><BR/>Actually, I don’t do this, the biblical precedent does this for me, not as a matter of moral obligation as explained above, but as a) a course of action that the Christian god has allegedly followed in the past, and b) as a course of action best determined by the principle of final causation, as I explained.<BR/><BR/>Peter: “Third, the thesis says, "... otherwise non-belief in such a being is warranted given the lack of evidence ... ." As a Christian I grant the claim that non-belief in something is warranted if there is no evidence.” But when you assume that there is a lack of evidence for the existence of God, you're reasoning in a circle.”<BR/><BR/>I would only be reasoning in a circle at that point if my intended outcome was to prove that there is no evidence for the Christian god. But I don’t have to prove the non-existence of something that does not exist, so mere observation is sufficient, and mere observation is not an instance of reasoning in a circle. Christians are free to produce whatever they consider as “evidence” for the existence of their god, and I am free to examine it and follow my judgment about what they present. You’re not expecting me to replace my judgment with your own, are you?<BR/><BR/>Peter: “If God exists, then He is under no obligation from anyone but Himself, then He has revealed Himself obviously (Romans 1:18-20), then all men know God (though many suppress the truth in unrighteousness).”<BR/><BR/>Well, if one takes the story of Saul’s encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus seriously, one could argue that the Christian god revealed itself obviously to Saul himself. But it would not follow from this – even if we did take the story in Acts seriously – that the same god revealed itself obviously to anyone or everyone else. Now, if you have something more substantial to go on than merely the <I>claim</I> that this god has revealed itself obviously to everyone, then please, don’t hold back. But merely claiming that “everyone already knows God,” as many Christians have asserted to me, is empty if it’s not backed up by something more substantial than the original claim found in Acts chapter 1. The Lahu could just as easily claim that their Geusha has obviously revealed itself to all men, and I see no reason to suppose the Christian apologist has anything more substantial going for his religious beliefs than the Lahu has for his. The parenthetical disclaimer “though many suppress the truth in unrighteousness” is simply a license for the believer to assume dishonesty on the part of those who don’t believe. It would be easy to build such a disclaimer into such a set of beliefs. But the result is that it simply multiplies the apologist’s burdens of proof rather than moving him any closer to prove any. Now he has three claims to prove: i) that his god exists, ii) that his god has revealed itself obviously to everyone, and iii) that some to whom it has allegedly revealed itself “suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” Multiplying your own burdens of proof is not a very wise procedure to follow if your goal is to persuade.<BR/><BR/>Peter: “So you can only say that there is no warrant for believing in God if you already assume He doesn't exist -- which is the very thing is dispute, and thus you reason in a circle.”<BR/><BR/>This statement only exposes your lack of familiarity with my writings. I have presented ample justification for rejecting god-belief, and it is certainly not circular in nature. My point in the present paper is that non-belief is justified given the New Testament’s own model conversion of Saul. In your response, you’ve given no reason why one should not expect the Christian god to appear before those it wants to save, à la Saul of Tarsus. But there are many other points I have raised. In the present paper, I have already alluded to one, namely the fact that believers offer nothing in the interest of distinguishing what they call “God” from something they may merely be imagining. Given the lack of any objective means by which I as an outsider to your belief can reliably distinguish between what you call “God” and what you may very well be imagining, the only reasonable course is to be honest and admit that there may be no significant distinction. Moreover, I have shown time and time again that religious god-belief stands on an invalid philosophical basis, namely the primacy of consciousness metaphysics, which contradicts itself. I have seen no defender of Christianity overcome this point.<BR/><BR/>Peter: “Fourth, about a little more than a week ago or so, I began work on a series called "Christianity vs. atheism and the burden of proof." It's still a work in progress, but it does address, though perhaps not directly, your thesis here.”<BR/><BR/>I’d be happy to examine it if you want to send it to me, or publish it on the web. But until then, it doesn’t do much good. I have many works in progress myself, but until they’re up, they don’t amount to much in terms of my discussions with others. So all I can say is, bring it on!<BR/><BR/>Peter: “Fifth, there were many who saw Jesus and his miracles and yet rejected him.”<BR/><BR/>That’s what the stories allege. But can you produce any firsthand testimony from those who allegedly fit these criteria? Can you find the writings of someone who testifies, for instance, “I witnessed the miracles of Jesus of Nazareth, and they were in fact miraculous performances, but I rejected his claim to godhood anyway”? Can you? Or, does the claim that there were such individuals remain confined to the pages of the Christian storybook? If the latter is the case, then it really does no good; anyone could make such claims, and anyone (such as yourself) could easily come along and repeat them. The point is not to regurgitate claims, but to substantiate them. And that’s what you have yet to do.<BR/><BR/>Peter: “Disbelief in God is an ethical problem,”<BR/><BR/>If disbelief in invisible magic beings is a consequence of simply being honest to oneself, whose “problem” is that? I certainly do not have a problem with people choosing to be honest. I made the choice to be honest, Peter. The outcome is that I do not believe what Christianity teaches. Time and time again, the apologists’ and their efforts to salvage their position only convince me all the more that I made the right decision.<BR/><BR/>Peter: “Finally, Jesus Christ may not reveal himself to you like he did to Saul (the Apostle Paul), but you can certainly read about it. It was quite amazing, don't you think?”<BR/><BR/>Many stories found in storybooks are amazing. But insofar as what is amazing is concerned, recourse to the supernatural in storywriting has always struck me as a rather cheap device. Besides, truly amazing things are accomplished by those who have hurdles to overcome, like merely mortal men pursuing goals in the face of seemingly insurmountable obstacles. But for a god which created the universe, is omnipotent and can make whatever it wants happen just by wishing or snapping its fingers, there’s nothing amazing there. So no, the stories in the bible fail to impress me on many counts. But the achievements of someone like Thomas Edison, the Wright Brothers, even Bill Gates... now those are amazing.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-90077543479054128692007-07-02T22:23:00.000-04:002007-07-02T22:23:00.000-04:00Dawson, Dawson. I leave blogging behind for a cou...Dawson, Dawson. I leave blogging behind for a couple of years, I come back, and I find you're still reasoning in a circle. What's going on?!<BR/><BR/>By the way, who took my old domain? (http://corneliusvantil.blogspot.com) Now it's "Raul, Raul, Raul" or something?<BR/><BR/>Anyways, as to your thesis, let me just make a few points. First, you write about the thesis, "... the objection neither charges nor requires that the Christian god has any obligation to begin with." Yet, the thesis states: "... it <I>should</I> reveal itself to them in an obvious way... ." In an intellectually sober and fair moment, I think you'd admit you're sending conflicting messages here.<BR/><BR/>Second, you send another conflicting message since the thesis places God <I>under obligation</I>, contrary to your claim, to reveal Himself in a particular manner - "... as the book of Acts says it did to Saul ... ."<BR/><BR/>Third, the thesis says, "... otherwise non-belief in such a being is warranted given the lack of evidence ... ." As a Christian I grant the claim that non-belief in something is warranted if there is no evidence. But when you assume that there is a lack of evidence for the existence of God, you're reasoning in a circle. If God exists, then He is under no obligation from anyone but Himself, then He has revealed Himself obviously (Romans 1:18-20), then all men know God (though many suppress the truth in unrighteousness). So you can only say that there is no warrant for believing in God if you already assume He doesn't exist -- which is the very thing is dispute, and thus you reason in a circle.<BR/><BR/>Fourth, about a little more than a week ago or so, I began work on a series called "Christianity vs. atheism and the burden of proof." It's still a work in progress, but it does address, though perhaps not directly, your thesis here.<BR/><BR/>Fifth, there were many who saw Jesus and his miracles and yet rejected him. Disbelief in God is an ethical problem, which is to say that people disbelieve God because of their sin, not because of a lack of evidence. People need the God's Spirit to change their hearts -- to "convert" them to embrace God.<BR/><BR/>Finally, Jesus Christ may not reveal himself to you like he did to Saul (the Apostle Paul), but you can certainly read about it. It was quite amazing, don't you think?<BR/><BR/>(P.S. I'm now going by "Peter" instead of "Christian Theist").Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03410277894552158218noreply@blogger.com