Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?

24) That although the only method we have for determining the truth in factual matters is methodological naturalism, which assumes a natural explanation for any phenomena, and although this method is the hallmark of the sciences, the phenomena of the Bible can be exempted from this method as applied through Biblical Criticism, and believed anyway.

12 comments:

MKR said...

although the only method we have for getting at the truth is methodological naturalism . . .

Really? How does methodological naturalism operate in, say, mathematics or deductive logic?

The proper statement to make would be that methodological naturalism is the only method we have for determining the truth in empirical matters.

Ryan Anderson said...

...and of course the phenomena of other religious traditions are not exempted from methodological naturalism. Just the Christian ones...

John W. Loftus said...

MKR, nitty picky, but okay. I changed it. Thanks.

J. K. Jones said...

You assume that the Christian Bible can't stand up to criticism.

It can, and it has for years.

Breckmin said...

"That although the only method we have for determining the truth in factual matters is methodological naturalism,"

Fail.

"which **assumes** a natural explanation for any phenomena"

circular reasoning easily dissected

"and although this method is the hallmark of the sciences,"

consensus gentium NOT to include theistic implication when clearly warranted

the problem is with claiming a monopoly on the scientific method as to exclude theistic implication and wrongfully DEFINE the empirical world as natural/materialist.

"the phenomena of the Bible can be exempted from this method"

consistent with all findings from scientific observation which is falsifiable would have been more accurate....
divine revelation is clearly NOT science - and we need to be careful what we specify as divine revelation (and what is human communication (with minor error)of this perfect divine revelation).

"as applied through Biblical Criticism, and believed anyway."

Clearly a historical textbook is not a scientific textbook so none of this can be over-simplified.

24 points which I disagree with and yet somehow they have to be true (no matter how big the strawman) in order for Christianity to be true.

All you are doing is re-defining the specifics of Christianity at face value in an attempt at reductio ad absurdum in order to expose alleged contradiction.

You can do this with anything...but if you present a belief structure incorrectly because of your usage of alleged claims which are slightly inaccurate (or even misrepresented by those who believe the system but don't know any better - because of equivocation, inexactism and face value contradiction)..

all you are doing is creating a strawman RATHER than giving Christianity itself its best argument and corroborative evidence.

Chuck O'Connor said...

Breckmin

Name one lab practicing science that operates with the "theistic implication" as part of its experimental protocol.

GearHedEd said...

Breckmin said,

"...consensus gentium NOT to include theistic implication when clearly warranted..."

You've got a week to show how the theistic implication is clearly warranted.

Ready?

Go!

GearHedEd said...

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention...

You can't use the Bible as "evidence" because it's not.

GearHedEd said...

Just because the lemmings were herded over the rdge of the cliff doesn't mean they made a good choice...

consensus gentium is moot.

Breckmin said...

"You can't use the Bible as "evidence" because it's not."

Why in the name of all that is reasonable would I resort to a circular argument?

The deduction that leads to theistic implication and the first conclusion of agnostic theism is based on scientific observation and logic alone.

Layman said...

What methods of determining the truth in non-factual matters do we have? And is it a factual matter when we determine how we can determine the truth of factual matters?

John W. Loftus said...

Layman, before you proceed tell me your proposed alternative method. That I'd like to see. Is it a method that produces results?...Predicts what we will likely see?...Explains that which needs to be explained?

Whether God exists and whether the Bible is true are factual matters. Correct? That is what we're discussing here.

You can discuss another issue if you'd like to though, but that is not what this reality check is about.

Cheers.