Tag: clbolt
-
Models, Frameworks, Circularity, and Blind Faith
Introduction
A number of my debate opponents have spoken of “models” or “frameworks.” A model or framework is posited as the basis of knowledge.
For example, one model or framework claims that we may only come to know things through evidence available to the five senses. But the claim that we may only come to know things through evidence available to the five senses is not itself accepted upon the basis of evidence available to the five senses!
Assumption
Some will respond that a model or framework does not have to follow its own rules. A model or framework is …
-
The Consistently Inconsistent Worldview Objection
Suppose someone posits that his or her worldview is consistently inconsistent. He or she admits that there are many inconsistencies within the worldview. In this case, inconsistency is not something to be shunned. Inconsistency is to be affirmed. Embraced. Granted approval. Are there such worldviews? Yes. There are worldviews that come close to rejecting the need for consistency. Buddhism and postmodernism are two examples. How might the covenantal apologist respond?
First, an inconsistency-affirming worldview is also consistency-affirming. There is nothing more inconsistent with inconsistency than consistency. To be consistent, an inconsistency-affirming worldview must also be a consistency-affirming worldview. …
-
On A Personal Note
Lately I have been battling some depression. Discouragement. Despondency. At this point in my life, and with the various activities I am involved in, I feel as though I am constantly jumping through hoops. When one is out of the way, ten more are set in front of me. Sometimes it makes me wish that I were not a Christian.
There are at least two problems here. One is that I am falsely identifying all of those things with which I concern myself on a daily basis with my obligatory Christian duty. The second is that I frequently forget a …
-
Dead Horses and Atheist Cowboys: Can everything be explained by science?
Fundamentalist atheists insist upon pitting science against religion as though the two are at odds when really they are not. They insist upon taking the side of science as though they are experts in the field in virtue of their atheism when really they are not. They insist that their dogmatic assumption of scientism – roughly the idea that science is the only or best way to knowledge – is rational when really it is not.
Let’s be clear. Science and religion are not enemies in the least. In fact, science presupposes a Christian worldview. Atheists are not necessarily experts …
-
A Christian Epistemology of Testimony
Epistemology of Testimony
In the Word of God we have the testimony of God. We accept this testimony on faith. We are warranted in doing so. One might say that we have a testimonial epistemology.
Doubting Scripture
Unbelievers often call the aforementioned testimonial epistemology into question. They question our accepting the Word of God on faith. They question the notion that we have the Word of God.
Frequently the aforementioned doubts stem from other testimony. So for example, a young person reads that naturalistic, macro-evolutionary biology is true and that he would be stupid or wicked for not accepting …
-
Imputation Attested in the Early, Medieval, and even Counter-Reformation Era
-
Jamin Hubner Reviews “Biblical Apologetics” By Clifford McManis
-
Sola Scriptura and the Canon Revisited: Guest Post by Adam Blauser
As I have gotten involved in dealing with Roman Catholicism and sola scriptura, I have found two things very interesting. First of all, there is a grossly simplistic view of meaning in language amongst many Roman Catholic apologists. Many of them will be willing to destroy human language in order to argue against sola scriptura, borrowing from men like Jacques Derrida and Stanley Fish to argue that we cannot know which interpretation of scripture is correct. It is amazing to be able to cite deconstructionists making parallel arguments to Roman Catholic apologists.
Second, what I am realizing more and more …
-
A Response to Jeremiah Bannister (paleocrat)
I will be responding to this post – http://jeremiahbannister.com/?p=154 – which is written in response to my post here – https://choosinghats.org/2012/11/canon-and-roman-catholicism.
Justin Scheiber of Reasonable Doubts recently linked to one of my posts on the canon of Scripture. I do not really have a way of following Justin, although I did notice an announcement that he is available for speaking engagements and debates. Perhaps one day he will debate me, but I am not holding my breath. In any event, Justin linked to me, and Jeremiah Bannister followed that link. Bannister is better known as “paleocrat.”
Some of you …
-
An Atheist Explanation of Thanksgiving
I do wonder sometimes what is going on in an atheist’s head.
Take this article for example:
An Atheist at the Thanksgiving table
First, who is this fellow’s target audience? Was somebody arguing that atheists do not have anything to be thankful for? I have never heard such an argument. And yet the bulk of this article is apparently aimed at showing that, “Atheists have plenty to be thankful for — without the need to include anything supernatural or non-existent on our lists.” Okay. Yeah. Atheists do have plenty to be thankful for. Glad we have established that!
Second, …