Skip to main content

What's The Point? The Legend Continues

Most ordinary people who claim to be agnostic are decent sorts, so you can rule out nihilism, because strictly speaking, it might edge pretty close to sociopathy.

Yet here is where the subscription to existentialism meets an interesting problem. If we embrace a skepticism about what reason is able to know, then it refutes the basis for a certain claim that particular divine directions--like the sacrifice of Isaac--are immoral, and the God which commanded them ought to be denied and rejected. If I cannot know anything with certainty, then I cannot know that my moral contentions, passionate as they may be, have any truth value. Indeed, the difficult passages in the Bible are difficult precisely because nearly all readers are approaching the text in a Judeo-Christian society and worldview, which accepts that God is bound by his nature. It does not seem correct or right that a good God would command the death of an innocent person to satisfy his wrath or justice. Other philosophical systems contend that what God commands is right, because he commands it.

These considerations do not erase the difficulty and the mystery of such passages, but we would do well to consider the wisdom of perhaps exploring these questions from the other direction. That is, let's set aside the consideration of miracles, prophecies, and supernatural beings, and instead consider knowing in itself. What might I be able to know through logic, or demonstration, or by deduction from first principles?

In fact, if one starts from the philosophical position that miracles are impossible, and that God who does them or permits them does not exist, one is highly likely to conclude that miracles are impossible, and God does not exist! But that's not a proof; that is circular. I can imagine or remember a few scenarios where I preferred a circular argument to the truth, but I always challenged myself with, "What are you, chicken?"

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un