Can Christianity be argued by Reason?

[Kevin_Walker]

Pace:

It seems as though the movie Mulholland Drive allows us to actually ‘see’ how the sacraments work.

Hi Pace,

But can Christianity be argued by movies? Isn’t it unreasonable to believe that a contrivance developed for entertainment or educational purposes by screenwriters, directors, actors, stuntmen, and lots of special effects, should ever at all be equated with Christianity? Especially tawdry directorial effort by someone like Lynch?

 

[Pace]

Kevin Walker:

Hi Pace,

But can Christianity be argued by movies? Isn’t it unreasonable to believe that a contrivance developed for entertainment or educational purposes by screenwriters, directors, actors, stuntmen, and lots of special effects, should ever at all be equated with Christianity? Especially tawdry directorial effort by someone like Lynch?

Kevin,

I explain it like this: *Mulholland Drive * is to other movies what Christ is to other men. Christ took on our appearance yet we know how much more he was than a mere man. God had to come to us ‘in disguise’, in both instances. Yet, the “disguise” is applied to his face not by him but by us and our sins; he is disguised in our sins. It is the same with movies. Movies are where are faith truly lies, so it is through the movies that he must reach us.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

Pace:

Kevin,

I explain it like this: *Mulholland Drive *is to other movies what Christ is to other men. Christ took on our appearance yet we know how much more he was than a mere man. God had to come to us ‘in disguise’, in both instances. Yet, the “disguise” is applied to his face not by him but by us and our sins; he is disguised in our sins. It is the same with movies. Movies are where are faith truly lies, so it is through the movies that he must reach us.

Pace,

Remember: Its only a movie; Its only a movie; Its only a movie; etc., etc,…ad infititum.

 

[bloodwater]

christianity has good base for what they say. catholics deny their own bible by holding fast to the law and tradition. they are modern day pharasees.

 

[Pace]

Kevin Walker:

Pace,

Remember: Its only a movie; Its only a movie; Its only a movie; etc., etc,…ad infititum.

Kev,

I could say that, but would I be speaking the truth?

I will spring another one of my theories on you :

Movies aren’t for us human beings. They are for the ‘angels within us’ (i.e. the battle within). They can bring God’s presence to us, somehow, if done perfectly. So, I think we should judge the reaction we see that surrounds any particular movie rather than the movie itself. This reaction will tell us what the movie really and truly is. This is so, I believe, because the demons are like walking confession machines, where God’s mere presence is a torment. *Mulholland Drive * has the exact same effect on us as Jesus had on the people of his time. It reminds me of the evil spirits who spoke through the demoniac recorded in the Gospels: they knew it was Jesus by his presence, without him having to say a word.

That’s just a theory, and I don’t expect you to feel like you have to reply to it for my sake.

 

[c0achmcguirk]

Apolonio:

Coach,

Thanks for the exchange.

Likewise.

I agree with you to the extent that we must have a battle of the worldviews. I guess the difference with my approach is that I sometimes lower the standard to “which worldview is more reasonable.”

And there has been some success with that method. However, if you’re starting point is that both worldviews are unproven–how can you use laws of logic to analyze both worldviews? The CTW, which you haven’t assumed at the start, is the only one of the two that will even allow you to use the laws of logic to test these worldviews.

Rather, the only way to debate worldviews IMHO is to first assume (presuppose) the CTW to be true. Then you can rely on laws of logic and other abstract universal absolutes.

On the problem of induction, I don’t see why that presuppose God’s existence.

Because induction requires uniformity of nature. When scientists put baking soda and vinegar together and observe that it has a violent reaction…what has it proven? Well, if you can’t rely on nature being uniform you’ve only proven that today’s vinegar mixed with today’s baking soda has a violent reaction. But what about tomorrow? How will it act tomorrow?

We Christians know it will do the same thing tomorrow because God created the world to act in a uniform way. But those who reject the CTW have to say, well, tomorrow it will probably react in the same way because we don’t really know nature is uniform.

I mean, how would the atheist prove nature is uniform? By observing the past? But this is the inductive principle! Which assumes the uniformity of nature. Circularity!

I do not see how I can prove God’s existence through the problem of induction.

You would point out how everyone knows nature is uniform and therefore the inductive principle is reliable. These are self-evident truths and only one worldview allows for them. The atheistic (or agnostic) worldview actually contradicts uniformity of nature, the inductive principle, laws of logic, and human dignity.

My question is, what is valid circularity and what is invalid?

An invalid circle would be the atheist’s relying on laws of logic without having a worldview that accounts for them. Or relying on the inductive principle as a scientist when one’s worldview doesn’t account for the uniformity of nature. When one asks the atheist to tell us how he knows he can rely on these immaterial universal laws, he is reduced to admitting that he arbitrarily assumes them to be true–while operating in a framework that denies their existence. The atheist contradicts himself, and is being circular.

However an valid and intelligible circle would be someone who relies on the same things when living in a worldview that can account for those abstract universal absolutes.

And what classical proof of God’s existence can a presuppostionalist believe to be valid?

Good question. I can’t answer that fully. I’m most impressed with the Cosmological argument, but I’ll admit most of them fail miserably as proofs.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[Apolonio]

Coach,

I don’t see the difference between starting with the worldviews unproven and assuming CTW. Of course, both worldviews, Christian and atheist, have their own presuppostions, their own assumptions. But it is unproven in the sense that they simply have their assumptions and nothing is put in the table yet. Let’s say the Christian has his own presuppositions. His worldview is not yet proven simply because he has not made an argument yet. When he makes the argument about the laws of logic, then he will prove God exists. I agree that the CTW can be assumed from the start, but only from the Christian point of view. This, however, does not mean it is already proven.

As far as the problem of induction is concerned, again, I don’t believe that proves the existence of God. God can create a world where the future is not like the past. Or, God can even create a world that is not in time, but eternal. So I don’t see that as proving God exists. I do see, however, the problem of induction as a way of having a rational belief in God’s existence, a God who made his cognitive faculties in a way that it will have an intuition of induction.

Now, as far as the circularity thing goes. If an atheist does not believe in objective morality, and just eats and drink because he feels like it, and he does not condemn any actions, then is not the atheist justified in his atheism? Now, as far as mathematics goes, he does not believe that there are really numbers “out there.” So he has no problem. It seems that the laws of logic (maybe even metaphysical laws) is the only “universal absolute law” he contradicts himself in, not morality or mathematics.

Finally, the cosmological arguments. I would say this. The cosmological argument, though it may have its weaknesses, makes it more probably and reasonable to believe in the resurrection. Of course, one can argue TAG does that, but the cosmological argument is sufficient for it as well. It can also take into account why there are contingent beings in the universe. I don’t think the TAG argument does that. I mean, after you have proven that there is the Source of the laws of logic, you can try to explain contingency, but the cosmological argument itself proves that God exists from contingency itself.

 

[chevalier]

Christianity in itself is consistent, but you need to take something on faith for a start. If we had tangible proof for everything, we would be those who know and not those who believe.

 

[Angainor]

I haven’t read through all the responses, has anyone mentioned C.S. Lewis yet?

Miracles
Mere Christianity

 

[chevalier]

CTRL+F, Find, “Lewis” (without quotes), no… not yet.

 

[adnauseum]

bloodwater:

christianity has good base for what they say. catholics deny their own bible by holding fast to the law and tradition. they are modern day pharasees.

You are not properly informed.

Acts 7:22

"So Moses was taught all the wisdom of the Egyptians and became a man with power both in his speech and in his actions."

Moses was schooled with a classical education, which would have included *philosophy*, mathematics, and secular wisdom of the day. In fact, the passage suggests it was this very education that made him virtuous in speech, which made him a most effective instrument in Yahweh's hands.

As the old fundamentalist song goes: “it was good enough for Moses, so it’s good enough for me.”

Sooner or later, my friend, you will come to realize you have been lied to about the Catholic Church. We will welcome you when this happens.

 

[Apolonio]

christianity has good base for what they say. catholics deny their own bible by holding fast to the law and tradition. they are modern day pharasees.

Response:
Okay, and the Sadducees also thought the Torah was sufficient for them. Sadducees took out other books from their scriptures just as the Protestants took out books from their Bible. So I guess the modern-day Sadducees are the Protestants.

 

[c0achmcguirk]

Apolonio:

Okay, and the Sadducees also thought the Torah was sufficient for them. Sadducees took out other books from their scriptures just as the Protestants took out books from their Bible. So I guess the modern-day Sadducees are the Protestants.

Okay, we’re really straying from the topic here, but I see this misunderstanding a lot.

We aren’t so certain that the Sadducees only recognized the Pentateuch as canonical. Instead, most experts believe that the Sadducees, Essenes, and Pharisees all recognized the same OT books:

“It is probable, indeed, that by the beginning of the Christian era the Essenes (including the Qumran community) were in substantial agreement with the Pharisees and the Sadducees about the limits of the Hebrew scripture. There may have been some differences of opinion and practice with regard to one or two of the ‘Writings’, but the inter-party disagreements remembered in Jewish tradition have very little to do with the limits of the canon. The idea that the Sadducees (like the Samaritans) acknowledged the Pentateuch only as holy scripture is based on a misunderstanding: when Josephus, for example, says that the Sadducees ‘admit no observance at all apart from the laws’, he means not the Pentateuch to the exclusion of the Prophets and the Writings but the written law (of the Pentateuch) to the exclusion of the oral law (the Pharisaic interpretation and application of the written law, which, like the written law itself, was held in theory to have been received and handed down by Moses).”
–F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988), pp. 40-41.

I highly recommend the definitive (and hard-to-find) book by Roger Beckwith called The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church for more information on this.

 

[c0achmcguirk]

Apolonio:

I don’t see the difference between starting with the worldviews unproven and assuming CTW.

Because without the CTW you can’t use laws of logic or the inductive principle. You have to first assume the CTW to be true to use them.

But it is unproven in the sense that they simply have their assumptions and nothing is put in the table yet.

But God has revealed Himself to all men. Atheists and agnostics know God and yet suppress the truth (Romans 1:18-32). They know there are abstract universal absolutes like laws of logic, etc., and they accept them, but they turn around and deny the God that is the precondition for them.

It is as absurd as the man who insists that he is not breathing air, yet in telling you this he must breathe air.

Let’s say the Christian has his own presuppositions. His worldview is not yet proven simply because he has not made an argument yet. When he makes the argument about the laws of logic, then he will prove God exists.

How could anyone understand the argument if laws of logic haven’t been established yet?

I agree that the CTW can be assumed from the start, but only from the Christian point of view. This, however, does not mean it is already proven.

I agree with you partially. God isn’t proven just because we use laws of logic…and yes, the CTW must be assumed first by the Christian. However, the Christian’s job in this debate is to show the atheist that he also assumes the CTW to be true without knowing it.

As far as the problem of induction is concerned, again, I don’t believe that proves the existence of God.

We all know and rely on the Inductive Principle in order for science to proceed. Without the CTW, the Inductive Principle is useless.

God can create a world where the future is not like the past. Or, God can even create a world that is not in time, but eternal. So I don’t see that as proving God exists.

Yes, but remember we are arguing the CTW. The CTW does not state that God created a world where the future is not like the past, nor does it state that God created a world out of time. Rather, we are stating that there is no other worldview that we have found in which the inductive principle makes sense.

Now, as far as the circularity thing goes. If an atheist does not believe in objective morality, and just eats and drink because he feels like it, and he does not condemn any actions, then is not the atheist justified in his atheism?

I’m not sure what your argument is here…but as for the morality stuff, I haven’t addressed this fully. The atheist must admit that his moral code was arbitrarily chosen by himself. All atheists have morals, its just that they choose for themselves the morals they will follow and reject those they do not want to follow. In this sense the atheist has no complaint when someone murders another, or when Hitler killed all those people. In the atheist universe, what one organism does to another is irrelevant. They have no right to impose their arbitrary morals upon Hitler or anyone else in a world without moral absolutes.

Now, as far as mathematics goes, he does not believe that there are really numbers “out there.” So he has no problem. It seems that the laws of logic (maybe even metaphysical laws) is the only “universal absolute law” he contradicts himself in, not morality or mathematics.

Mathematics is more convention than universal absolute. 1 + 1 = 2 in base 10. But in binary, 1 + 1 = 10. Mathematics must answer to the laws of logic however…you cannot contradict yourself in Mathematics.

I don’t think the TAG argument does that. I mean, after you have proven that there is the Source of the laws of logic, you can try to explain contingency, but the cosmological argument itself proves that God exists from contingency itself.

I’m not saying one must use TAG to the exclusivity of all other arguments. I think TAG should be used first to establish the CTW, but one can use the Cosmological afterwards to show contingency, if you feel that is necessary to establish.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[Apolonio]

Coach,

You said, “God isn’t proven just because we use laws of logic…and yes, the CTW must be assumed first by the Christian. However, the Christian’s job in this debate is to show the atheist that he also assumes the CTW to be true without knowing it.”

That’s what I was trying to say. So we agree on that point. With the problem of induction, again, I disagree since I don’t see the induction principle necessarily proving God. This is because God could have made a world without us having to use the principle. I think the best thing the induction principle can do is tell us that belief in God is the most reasonable explanation why we hold such a principle. As far as morality is concerned, if the atheist has no problem with Hitler and evil, then he is consistent with his worldview. If an atheist is capable of not condemning anything, then I see his worldview to be consistent. But that doesn’t usually happen as we both know it.

Finally, with regards to the Sadducees, we do know that they rejected the oral Torah. So if someone is going to say that Catholics are modern-day Pharasees, then the Protestants have to be modern-day Sadducees. With regards to the canon of the Sadducees, I disagree with Bruce (and also with Beckwith). The most probable explanation for their rejection of the resurrection and angels and demons because of their rejection of the other books. In fact, www.carm.org says:

“The Sadducees accepted only the Torah, the first five books of the old Testament, as authoritative.”

I suggest Vanderkam, Sundberg, Barton, and others on this issue and the issue on the canon itself.

 

[Pace]

Kevin Walker:

Pace,

Remember: Its only a movie; Its only a movie; Its only a movie; etc., etc,…ad infititum.

See how the philosophy discussion here passed us by like we were two bums in the night? This begins to prove how Mulholland Drive is not a movie, but rather it is you and me and anyone else who chooses to believe in it.

 

[c0achmcguirk]

Apolonio:

That’s what I was trying to say. So we agree on that point. With the problem of induction, again, I disagree since I don’t see the induction principle necessarily proving God.

At this point I think we’ve come full circle. Thanks for your interaction in this stimulating dialogue. I’ll let you have the final word on TAG.

Finally, with regards to the Sadducees, we do know that they rejected the oral Torah.

Yes, they did reject the oral Torah (the Talmud). This isn’t the basis of our discussion, though.

So if someone is going to say that Catholics are modern-day Pharasees, then the Protestants have to be modern-day Sadducees.

I can see the analogy, but it’s imperfect…as all analogies are.

With regards to the canon of the Sadducees, I disagree with Bruce (and also with Beckwith). The most probable explanation for their rejection of the resurrection and angels and demons because of their rejection of the other books.

This argument defeats itself for several reasons.

1. As Hippolytus states, the Sadducees interpreted references to the resurrection in a non-literal manner: as referring to the children someone leaves behind when he or she dies ( Refutation 9.29 ), so your argument does not follow.
2. Angels do appear in the Pentateuch: Gen 19:1,15; Gen 28:12; Gen 32:1 and so forth. If their disbelief in angels proves the Prophets and the Writings weren’t in their canon, then this proves the Pentateuch wasn’t in their canon either.

Beckwith deals fully with the Sadducee canon on pages 87-91 of his book. I don’t have a copy of Vanderkam, Sundberg, or Barton so I don’t know if they address Beckwith’s arguments or not.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[Neithan]

Originally posted by Angainor:
I haven’t read through all the responses, has anyone mentioned C.S. Lewis yet?

No, I haven’t read any of his books yet (except the Narnia Chronicles of course), but I will soon.

I read this letter of the pope’s (1998) on Reason and Faith yesterday. It’s excellent, and pertains to this thread.

 

[Apolonio]

Coach,

Barton and Vanderkam deals with Beckwith. Again, I don’t agree with what Beckwith says on the Sadducees. With regards to TAG, I’ll just leave our discussion where it ended. Thanks for the discussion.

God love you,
A.L. III

 

[BibleReader]

Reason only helps us clearly perceive revelation. It can’t replace it.