Another difficulty with religious language (and hence, Christianity) that non-religious people have concerns itself with “falsifiability,” or the aspect of any claim which states it must, in principle at least, be capable of subjecting to certain scientific criteria by which it can conceivably be proven false, in order to be considered meaningful. Like Verificationism, Falsificationism assumes an empiricist worldview, and so is subject immediately to some of the criticisms of Verificationism, including for instance, the seeming arbitrariness of the foundational principles undergirding it. Falsificationism was articulated as a way to circumvent the problems inherent in Verificationism. While Karl Popper …Read more
Few things really irk me in this world. There’s waking up, missing church, missing the gym, slow internet connections – to name a couple. One thing in particular that always tends to turn the knob on my internal oven, and I’ve been seeing a lot of it lately, is the insistence by the non-religious that “private religion” is to be kept out of the public realm, or that religion is to be kept out of politics, etc. I understand that, particularly with regard to Christianity, there are some debates on what a Christian body politic would look like, but my …Read more
One of the many problems atheists have with Christianity involves the issue of Verificationism. They may say, “I can’t believe Christianity because it can’t be verified,” and some might include, “…scientifically.” Some may even say, “It’s not true unless it can be verified.” Greg Bahnsen has a chapter in Always Ready entitled, “The Problem of Religious Language,” wherein he deals with both Verificationism and Falsificationism. The summary of the problem is that any religious utterance cannot be considered “meaningful” unless it can be checked against real-world data. Any talk of God, for instance, must correspond to something observable in the …Read more
Atheist Matt Oxley comments on Christian responses to the shooting in Connecticut as follows:
Despite how angry this makes me, how silly and offensive I find these notions, suddenly I find myself envious of people with some form of a god to comfort them and answer their questions, even if those answers are shallow and ignorant, because I am simply without any answers that can even begin to make sense of this. Answers like this seem almost blissful.
Note that Matt is angry at the application of Christian tenets to tragic events. As I mentioned in my debate with Matt, …Read more
Not too long ago a good friend sent me this article: http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=usnj&c=words&id=15275 The author is a Wiccan philosopher. I wanted to respond to it for my friend, and even for myself, as it helps to articulate a position you disagree with. The following is somewhat of a rough sketch, and I’m sure I didn’t get to everything in it. It’s not a response to Wicca per se, but to the philosophical underpinnings highlighted throughout.Here it is:
Alright so here are some of my initial thoughts. The author is clearly using a particular jargon, at times using terms only someone familiar …Read more
To the average Westerner, the religious texts and teachings of the East often read like drug induced nonsense. At the same time, Eastern religions contain some insight in virtue of their very different approach to familiar topics.
Take, for example, the problem of evil. As far as most atheists are concerned, this is the best weapon available against theism, and especially Christian theism. Of course, the problem of evil fails as an objection to the Christian faith due to the unbeliever’s inability to fashion an argument against the premise that ‘God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil He …Read more
Lindsay Brooks of Apologetics.com was on Backpack Radio giving a basic introduction to presuppositional apologetics and ending with an argument from beauty.
Make sure to check out the other shows these guys have done as well. Great stuff!…Read more
Imagine your confession of faith, or your church’s doctrinal statement. Imagine what would happen if you started to play mix and match with the statements contained in it. This is a site dedicated to presuppositional apologetics, obviously, which almost inevitably means that we have to, at some point, personally examine our stance on things like Reconstructionism/Theonomy, along with confessionalism, the paedo/credo divide, eschatology, and other issues along those lines. Here’s what I want to point out, and want to stand out. Be wary of sudden swings, and be mindful of your theological stability (or lack thereof). This is a “mixed” …Read more