|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 4, 2007 20:09:33 GMT -5
Ok, this is for the apologetics nuts. What do you think? How do we know what we know? Can science yield any knowledge even with the right presuppositions?
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jan 4, 2007 20:14:49 GMT -5
For a few weeks now I've been absorbing the stuff at www.rmiweb.org. It comes from a more decidedly Clarkian point of view but not entirely. Still has some in common with Van Til. Cheung kind of has his own approach, in his own words. I still have not decided which of the two men I would most agree with. I am reading The Defense of the Faith by Van Til and I am reading Cheung's works as well. Might read Clark in the future. Basically Cheung's approach is to eradicate empiricism as a real epistemology at all. He would say that we do not gain any real knowledge from our senses, ever, but any true knowledge that any person has is given to him by God and is known in his incorporeal mind - even acts such as seeing a person, reading a book or the reading the Bible itself are not tools to gain true knowledge, since an unbeliever can read the Bible and not understand the spiritual truths therein. He'd say that the sensational activities that accompany the gain of knowledge are coincedental, basically, and that it's God who gives everyone certain amounts of knowledge. This is covered in his book, Ultimate Questions which is free for download on the site I linked. Evan is into this stuff too. I am still reading it and gaining understanding of how belief systems like platonic atheism are invalid due to this approach. As for the idea that science can give us any true knowledge at all - no, it can't. It's practically useful but inherently fallacious. The scientific method commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent, or saying that the converse of a statement is true. Even atheist philosophers like Bertrand Russell have admitted this. That is, 1. If P then Q 2. Q 3. Therefore, P This is always fallacious reasoning since there is an infinite number of things which could still be causing Q other than P. If you've done any work with truth tables in a logic or discrete math or abstract math class, you know that p -> q and q -> p are not logically equivalent, which is saying the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 4, 2007 20:25:35 GMT -5
Same here. I've read about a 1/3 of "The Defense" some time ago then put it down. I'm going to start over and read it through. I've also printed off some of Cheung's stuff and reading it. I don't think you can be anything but a Calvinist to believe like him and Clark, can you? I don't see it possible. If God gives every person every thing they "know" (what ever that means?) the God controls absolutely everything. Maybe that is why I am having problems agreeing with the Clarkian view of science. I've read some of Bahnsen's stuff too. I seems to be an easier read, maybe because he doesn't bash Armenians. At least I haven't ran across him doing that yet.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 4, 2007 20:29:30 GMT -5
How do you know what the scientific method is? Did you deduce that from Scripture? lol
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jan 4, 2007 20:31:02 GMT -5
Same here. I've read about a 1/3 of "The Defense" some time ago then put it down. I'm going to start over and read it through. I've also printed off some of Cheung's stuff and reading it. I don't think you can be anything but a Calvinist to believe like him and Clark, can you? I don't see it possible. If God gives every person every thing they "know" (what ever that means?) the God controls absolutely everything. Maybe that is why I am having problems agreeing with the Clarkian view of science. I've read some of Bahnsen's stuff too. I seems to be an easier read, maybe because he doesn't bash Armenians. At least I haven't ran across him doing that yet. Yeah, I don't understand how somebody could use Clark's or Cheung's apologetics and still be an Arminian. I think it's inconsistent. Evan is Arminian and employs it to some extent, though, but he's not here. I've kind of wanted to ask him about that.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jan 4, 2007 20:32:04 GMT -5
How do you what the scientific method is? Did you deduce that from Scripture? lol I don't know if you are serious or not but the common criticism against Clark's apologetic is that "you have to use your senses to read the bible" and things like that. He handles this, you just have to read the books.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 4, 2007 20:32:44 GMT -5
I was joking. I was reading an online debate about it and that is about as far as the debate got. "how do you know? well, how do you KNOW?" ect.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 4, 2007 20:37:19 GMT -5
Me too. I e-mailed him about it earlier.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jan 4, 2007 20:43:15 GMT -5
Cheung pulls no punches against Arminianism (he calls it a heresy - yet as far as I know does not believe it is damnable heresy, and neither do I) and holds some theological positions that many Arminians and other synergists would find reprehensible (for example, active election AND active reprobation). I think it would be hard to even read very much of his material, as an Arminian, and not get upset. Luckily, that is not a problem I have. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 4, 2007 21:08:47 GMT -5
Cheung pulls no punches against Arminianism (he calls it a heresy - yet as far as I know does not believe it is d**nable heresy, and neither do I) and holds some theological positions that many Arminians and other synergists would find reprehensible (for example, active election AND active reprobation). I think it would be hard to even read very much of his material, as an Arminian, and not get upset. Luckily, that is not a problem I have. ;D I don't have a huge problem reading him. I just don't agree with everything he has deduced from scripture. I'm reading an e-mail debate from him now. he seems to seperate himself from all other presuppositionalists. I've often wondered when getting into logic if you start changing doctrine to make everything "logical" do you start distorting the Bible. Does using Greek logic always line up with Hebrew scriptures? I would like to learn more about Hebrew block logic.
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Jan 4, 2007 21:38:17 GMT -5
I don't have a huge problem reading him. I just don't agree with everything he has deduced from scripture. I'm reading an e-mail debate from him now. he seems to seperate himself from all other presuppositionalists. I've often wondered when getting into logic if you start changing doctrine to make everything "logical" do you start distorting the Bible. Does using Greek logic always line up with Hebrew scriptures? I would like to learn more about Hebrew block logic. The debate with Derek Sansone? ;D that is good stuff. I understand your sentiments. Some people have a problem with the Reformed theology because it is very logical. I have never perceived any problems with it, though. I would agree with everything in Cheung's theology except for active reprobation and the denial of common grace (Those are where he is controversial - many Calvinists don't believe those two things - I am wrestling with them myself). I know nothing about Hebrew block logic.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 4, 2007 21:57:22 GMT -5
Here is a short article I ran across once.
BLOCK LOGIC (An Introduction to Hebrew Thought) Compiled By Robert Wurtz II
Hebrew thought was perhaps the last topic I would have ever expected to really open my eyes as to why so many problems with understanding scripture have developed over the last 2000 years. Every culture has a certain paradigm. The Greeks used a linear logic that flows in steps from premises to a conclusion. Each step linked closely to the next in a coherent, rational, logical fashion. The conclusion is almost always limited to one view- a human beings limited perspective on reality. It takes into account only things that can be understood within the finite minds of the human cranium and stutters and stumbles at realities beyond its comprehension. Man has ever thirsted to understand things too wonderful for him; and in so doing, often grossly limits the true reality of issues by reducing them to the size of his or her own mind. This is why we are told not to lean to our own understanding, but in all our ways acknowledge Him and He will direct our paths. The Angel that announced the birth of Sampson asked the parents, “Why is it that you ask me my name seeing it is beyond your comprehension.” If an angels name could be beyong our comprehension- why would we continue to reduce the truths of God with the sword of Greek logic? Greek logic is mans attemp to understand something that is spiritually discerned. It is like putting your faith in a strait jacket. John Wesley once remarked concerning unconditional election and God being the author of sin, “Better would it be to say that it made no sense at all than to say that these passages made a sense such as this.” (Paraphrased) But man is not content to say, “It makes no sense at all!” Why? Because pride desires to know things too wonderful for us. We prefer to lean upon the arm of understanding rather than the arm of FAITH.
Do a study on the Jews. You will find that they have the highest amount of accomplished scientist of any other group. Take some facts from science: Did you know that Albert Einstein was a Jew? Did you know about all the nobel prizes? Their contributions to society to be such a small group are enormous! Could part of it be that while men were thinking Newtonian Physics - the Jewish mind saw a deeper and perhaps wonderful possibility for the building blocks of all creation? While the high school science books were depecting the atom in a Newtonian solor system looking atom- while it was really acting like a wave? Quantum physics took us into the electronics and nuclear age. There comes a point when logic runs out- and you have to step out in faith. Not to say that God is not logical- His logic is too wonderful for our comparitively weak and beggarly models of thinking.
One of the great tragedies of the last 2000 has been the influence of Greek philosphy upon interpretation of scripture. Greek logic falls wildly short of being able to understand God and His word and for this cause when Greek logic is used to understand scripture the reader is filled with all manor of feelings of contradiction. This is one of the great arguments that Messianics have had against the Gentile dominated Church is that they have a Hellenistic view of scripture. Greek logic leaves much to be desired in terms of understanding scripture and tempts man to venture into places that God never intended Him to go. Have you ever wondered why there arose so many heresies in the first 4 centuries? People were trying to understand scripture through the ill equipped framework of Greek logic and all sorts of madness developed.
Block Logic by DR. Aaron Wilson:
The biblical authors never argue the existence of God; they only assume it. God is not understood philosophically, but functionally. He acts. The Hebrews primarily thought of him pictorially, in terms of personality and activity, not in terms of pure being or in any static sense. That is, to express the divine attribute of love, the Hebrews would normally think in terms of a “loving God” (i.e., a God who loves), rather than “God is love.” Certainly, therefore, the Hebrew mind-set of Bible times would find little or no interest in many of the issues the Church has debated over the centuries. These issues include theoretical arguments for the existence of God, the nature of the Godhead, free will and predestination, the specifics of the life to come, and the precise way in which the divine and human mesh in the inspiration of Scripture.
The Hebrew knew he did not know all the answers. His position was “under the sun” (Eccl. 8:17), so his words were few (5:2). He refused to oversystematize or force harmonization on the enigmas of God’s truth or puzzles of the universe. He realized that no one could straighten what God has made crooked (7:13). All things, therefore, did not need to be fully rational. The Hebrew mind was willing to accept the truths taught on both sizes of the paradox; it recognized that mystery and apparent contradictions are often signs of the divine. Stated succinctly, the Hebrews knew the wisdom of learning to trust in matters that they could not fully understand.
While philosophical and structural divisions of learning obviously have an important role to play in contemporary education, our Western culture–especially on most levels of secular and Christian instruction–has provided little understanding concerning the nature of Hebrew thought. Thus we have the natural tendency to impose more rational and systematic categories of thought on the Bible. The Bible, however, tends to reject most carefully worked-out charts and thoroughgoing attempts at schema-tization. Neither God nor his Word may be easily contained in a box for logical or scientific analysis. Both God and his Word have a sovereign unpredictability that defies rational, human explanation. The Christian dogmatic tradition has much to learn from the Jewish community at this point.
The Semites of Bible times did not simply think truth–they experienced truth. Truth is as much encounter as it is propositions. This experiential perspective on reality explains, in part, why Judaism never really developed vast systems of thought. It also allows us to understand how Judaism could live with the tensions and paradoxes surrounding block logic. To the Jew, the deed was always more important than the creed. He was not stymied by language that appeared contradictory from a human point of view. Neither did he feel compelled to reconcile what seemed irreconcilable. He believed that God ultimately was greater than any human attempt at systematizing truth. “Walking in the truth” (2 John 4) and “living the truth” (1 John 1:6) were a higher priority than rationally analyzing the truth.
Wilson, Marvin “Our Father Abraham” c. 1989 Eerdmans
|
|
|
Post by apeterson on Jan 5, 2007 17:27:59 GMT -5
that is funny Josh...
you can input anything into that formula too... for example..
my son has ears elephants have ears therefore my son is an elephant...
as a lover of apologetics... and still a freethinker... I have always had problems with formulaic apologetic arguments... rather than reasoning apologetic arguments...
science today is its biggest hindrence in and of itself... because instead of the quest for factual truth it has become a "quest for truth that fits into our formulaic approach...an unfortunate fruit of post-modernism
(as if man's ability to measure has anything to do with truth)
I think it will be found out probably later after many years, using debate tactics and scientific methods to discern truth will be its own greatest hindrence to the true definition of science... (which means knowledge), obviously of factual truth....
Since we Christians understand that truth is
a. absolute b. unmoving c. yet to be fully discovered except for what is revealed..
it is going to be hard, and difficult in future times to cope with those who would use scientific method to apprehend truth... or logical deduction using scientific method..
truth is fixed... and absolute... it is men who are constantly moving toward it, rather than the adverse...
it will get harder and harder to discern, since men are waiting for truth to move towards our fixed, and fallable methods and units of measure as opposed to reality...
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Jan 5, 2007 19:19:45 GMT -5
Bible Bible Bible! That's the only way.
|
|