Choosing Hats
-
Faint Inconsistencies and Heightened Sensitivity to the Obvious
One of the difficult things about arguing against a presuppositionalist is that the use of the presuppositional method necessitates an emphasis upon discerning contradictions within a worldview even when those contradictions are implied by a manner of speaking utilized by an individual. Two immediately apparent dangers associated with such an approach are that of finding contradictions where none exist and that of revealing one’s inconsistencies through the habit of speech. The latter may be spoken of in a positive sense and an example given in the case of a naturalist ascribing intentionality to nature. Heightened sensitivity to such error stems …
-
Don’t Be An Ostrich
In The Fixation of Belief Peirce describes four methods for the “fixation of belief”. According to Peirce, the goal of inquiry is to settle one’s opinion. Thus Peirce asks, “why should we not attain the desired end, by taking as answer to a question any we may fancy, and constantly reiterating it to ourselves, dwelling on all which may conduce to that belief, and learning to turn with contempt and hatred from anything that might disturb it?”[1] This is what Peirce refers to as the “Method of Tenacity”. Now I must wonder whether or not this reminds you of …
-
The Problem of Religion (Part 3): James, Kierkegaard, Buber
This is the last installment for this series. Search the title for the previous parts.
As mentioned in the introduction, William James really does not care a great deal about dogmatic theology or philosophy of religion as it is often presented by people like Descartes, as he is a pragmatist. Dogmatic theology and philosophy of religion are often unsuccessful and impractical. The only exceptions are when religious experience (the kind Freud dislikes as justification for religion) and philosophy are put together to help with the experience.
Of course there are large differences between what Freud is after and what James …
-
Falling Down
A section of the ongoing discussion between Chris the evil Presuppositionlist (inside joke, sorry) and Mitch over at Urban Philosophy caught my attention today. It is a section that discusses the concept of “common ground” between believer and unbeliever by using the analogy of gravity. Here is the entirety of what Mitch stated caught my attention:
…The common ground of reality affect both the believer and the non-believer, and this is a common ground from which dialogue may begin. Knowledge of gravity is not required for the effects of gravity. We do not see babies flying because they do not
-
More Mitch, Moreland
In a recent post Mitch LeBlanc accuses me of blundering and misunderstanding apologetics. I consider these extremely strong claims coming from someone who argues as inconsistently regarding apologetics as Mitch does.
Mitch LeBlanc has been writing comments on my posts regarding apologetic methodology in which he attempts to actually defend the method even though as far as I know he claims to be an atheist and rejects the traditional arguments for the existence of God. Mitch often ranges well beyond the scope of a topic in responding to it; that this is the case may be seen in his presentation …
-
Of Mitch and Moreland
For some unknown reason Mitch LeBlanc has recently been half-heartedly defending non-presuppositionalist apologetics from the evil presuppositionalist Chris Bolt. It is as though he believes that the contributors to Choosing Hats have never really dealt with arguments in favor of other methods of apologetics, or that we are not familiar with the other methods of apologetics, but I do not want to assume this concerning his belief. However, I will state plainly that if he believes this, he is incorrect.
Mitch wrote a comment on my post that was about the statement Dr. Craig made prior to his debate with …
-
No, Dr. Craig; I will not and I cannot.
Today I was shown the first part of the William Lane Craig versus Christopher Hitchens debate. Before Craig begins to present his case, he mentions that he welcomes those who “check their view at the door”. This allegedly allows for an “objective” position from which to evaluate argument and evidence.
Unfortunately for Craig, no such position exists. He is only entitled to disagree with this claim if he rejects what is set forth in the Christian worldview with respect to the issue. This is God’s world and we are made in the image of God. Christian teaching is that Christ …