tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post5335114340094191236..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Jaco Gericke: Fundamentalism on Stilts: A Devastating Response to Alvin Plantinga's Reformed EpistemologyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-19000607460666890872012-12-01T22:13:01.627-05:002012-12-01T22:13:01.627-05:00Eric, Plantinga is a waste of time considering par...Eric, Plantinga is a waste of time considering parts of Genesis are variations of polytheistic myths which have nothing to do with Christianity. It's been game over for Christianity for a long time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-37733745889430419902010-01-08T10:13:28.544-05:002010-01-08T10:13:28.544-05:00Yes.Yes.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01133946325994766958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-77272212293767690822010-01-08T05:09:21.841-05:002010-01-08T05:09:21.841-05:00Eric, I provided a link to his article. You read i...Eric, I provided a link to his article. You read it right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-86364683970537997662010-01-08T00:38:12.722-05:002010-01-08T00:38:12.722-05:00I think there are a few clues in this post that su...I think there are a few clues in this post that suggest that Gericke hasn't read Plantinga very carefully. He suggests that Plantinga speaks of God in terms of 'Divine Simplicity.' Plantinga has, of course, argued against the notion of divine simplicity. I'm also not aware of any place that Plantinga claims that the OT is anti-evidentialist (I'm not even sure what it would me to say that a collection of books is anti-evidentialist, but that's probably off-topic). I'm also not aware of where Plantinga "either assumes beforehand that the Bible is the Word of God or merely fallible human superstition." (References by Gericke would be nice.) Also, Plantinga nowhere suggests that if historical criticism is false, then his own hermeneutic is correct by default. Certainly not on the page that Gericke references. I'm also not aware of anywhere where Plantinga argues against evolution, as such. Also, Plantinga makes no references to proper basicality in his discussion of historical criticism.<br /><br />Ultimately, Gericke's article is poorly written because he either fails to engage what Plantinga actually says or because he didn't properly reference his article.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01133946325994766958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1536694500833348452010-01-07T04:09:25.133-05:002010-01-07T04:09:25.133-05:00I think it strange to keep wanting to go back to w...I think it strange to keep wanting to go back to what silly Greek or Hebrew people thought when we know that the "advanced revelation" within the KJV in 1611 sorted out forever what textual variances were right and those that weren't. Anyway, I think many of the problems with Plantinga would go back to him using modern, 'liberal' translations of Scripture. ;)Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14864186571439307816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-86249594879125444072010-01-04T13:26:19.769-05:002010-01-04T13:26:19.769-05:00John,
Tell me what you think of my new blog:
...John,<br /> Tell me what you think of my new blog:<br /><br />http://humanitarium.wordpress.com/<br /><br />-philosophicalinquireropenphilosopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08298996905122710267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-81062067795131679142010-01-04T13:24:39.990-05:002010-01-04T13:24:39.990-05:00It seems to me that the god of the NT doesn't ...It seems to me that the god of the NT doesn't match the Messiah of the OT. The question then becomes which one is supposed to be properly basic? I wrote about this on my blog: http://humanitarium.wordpress.com/<br /><br />I wrote that Jesus is not the Messiah in two entries. Anyway, keep up the good work John!openphilosopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08298996905122710267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-25584420528504901762009-12-13T03:46:39.795-05:002009-12-13T03:46:39.795-05:00Luke I've posted a few things of his on the fr...Luke I've posted a few things of his on the front page of DC recently. Also check out <a href="http://www.up.ac.za/dspace/items-by-author?author=Gericke%2C+Jacobus+Wilhelm" rel="nofollow">these articles</a>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-9130153582802081382009-12-13T03:31:46.114-05:002009-12-13T03:31:46.114-05:00kiwi, Gericke is a philosopher of religion. Tell m...kiwi, Gericke is a philosopher of religion. Tell me what books and articles you have read of him please.<br /><br />Did you read the whole article I linked to?<br /><br />Would you please tell me how Plantinga succeeds when it can be shown that Yahweh doesn't exist?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-22351979652573815592009-12-12T20:56:48.118-05:002009-12-12T20:56:48.118-05:00Doesn't Plantinga admit that believing in anot...Doesn't Plantinga admit that believing in another God than the Christian God could also be properly basic? If I'm right, then Reformed Epistemology is not refuted at all by Gericke.<br /><br />If I recall correctly what Plantinga said in an interview, one of the main purpose of his work is to challenge the evidentialist claim that belief in a God is irrational if there is no evidence. Sure, Plantinga is a Christian, so obviously he'll try to defend the view that belief in the Christian God is properly basic, but the main purpose of Reformed Epistemology is not to be as specific.<br /><br />It seems to me Gericke is missing a lot of the subtleties in Plantinga work as well. Could it be that he only read 1 or 2 books of him? I'm wondering just how much time he has invested studying Plantinga work.kiwihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05574278615993892853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-61534568186124179402009-12-12T16:35:45.020-05:002009-12-12T16:35:45.020-05:00Nice! What else has this guy written? I want more!...Nice! What else has this guy written? I want more!Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12968634190280933116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64682810422579156142009-12-12T15:23:16.203-05:002009-12-12T15:23:16.203-05:00one of those paths that is not deductively valid b...one of those paths that is not deductively valid by the way is of course science itself.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-85597776333826290172009-12-12T14:34:55.951-05:002009-12-12T14:34:55.951-05:00Dr. Gericke demonstrates the philosophy of theolog...Dr. Gericke demonstrates the philosophy of theology generated by Plantinga as Plantinga tries to fight off his cognitive dissonance and maintain his beliefs.Piratefishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03417608807997170547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-72364056569999686252009-12-12T13:36:45.855-05:002009-12-12T13:36:45.855-05:00On the contrary, there is ample reason to believe ...<em>On the contrary, there is ample reason to believe that a ‘soft’ evidentialism is in fact the default epistemology taken for granted in ancient Israelite religion given the nature of many of the pre-philosophical epistemological assumptions in the biblical narratives. The whole idea of miracles (signs) and revelation via theophany, audition, dreams, divination and history can be said to presuppose an evidentialist epistemology (see the oft-repeated formula ‘so that they may know…’).</em><br /><br />Of course there is evidentialism involved in scripture. And it isn't for the proposition that God or a greater power exists but rather what kind of greater power he is. I can't imagine Plantinga assuming that every Christian doctrine should arise from a properly basic belief in God. Maybe he does, but I seriously doubt it.<br /><br /><em>but the problem is also that the concept of a singular ‘traditional’ reading is meaningless,</em><br /><br />Then so is every reference by Gericke of Plantinga as a fundamentalist. Can a tradition concievably have variety as well as malleability in it or not? If it can't, well, what is the point of speaking of fundamentalism at all since there are many views within Christianity and without that are considered fundamentalism. You have to believe that especially if you call an evolutionist like Plantinga a fundamentalist. Gericke can continue to refer to Plantinga as a fundamentalist if he wants, but it only invalidates many of his arguments that are based on the variety of belief that are alleged of the scriptures to insist that the variety is at odds with the idea of a common thread and central idea.<br /><br /><em>However, not only is any appeal to tradition in itself a potential logical fallacy in the justification of truth </em><br /><br />How we come to believe things is often not deductively valid. Yet that path is still reasonable. And it is reasonable that if the God of all humanity has been working with us since the first humans (or first humans with immortal souls bearing the divine image), we should be concerned to find consonance with ancient beliefs, with a tradition.Rob Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08937716910001145836noreply@blogger.com