It is clear, however, the nothing other than God can account for God. Either God cannot be accounted for – which makes the divine existence and nature something which just happens to be the case – or the divine nature accounts for its own existence. To “account for” is to give a reason; thus the reason for God’s existence must lie in that existence itself.
She is of the kind you don’t think you can get.
Surely in matters of trying to find a proper definition for the discipline of Apologetics a plethora of examples are available at hand for us to choose from. Alister McGrath in his recent autobiography entitled C.S. Lewis: A Life (2013) [1] defines Apologetics as the “business of identifying, understanding, and answering concerns and difficulties that ordinary people have about the Christian faith, and also demonstrating its power to explain things and satisfy the deepest longings of the human heart” [2]. This definition I find quite admirable since it is in line with the methodology of Lewis and exposes the rather “theologically practical” side of the apologetic endeavor.
In this post I will deal with two essential points:
This one is a very simple introduction.
There are many religions, and they are very different, but what I have in mind is common to the great monotheisms, perhaps to some polytheistic religions, and even pantheistic religions… It is the idea that there is some kind of all-encompassing mind or spiritual principle in addition to the minds of individual beings and other creatures – and that this mind or spirit is the foundation of the existence of the universe, of the natural order, of value, and of our existence, nature, and purpose. The aspect of religious belief I am talking about is belief in such a conception of the universe, and the incorporation of that belief into one’s conception of oneself and one’s life.
The important thing for the present discussion is that if you have such a belief, you cannot think of yourself as leading a merely human life. Instead, it becomes a life in the sight of God, or an element in the life of the world soul. You must try to bring this conception of the universe and your relation to it into your life, as part of the point of view from which it is led.
This is part of the answer to the question of who you are and what you are doing here. It may include a belief in the love of God for his creatures, belief in an afterlife, and other ideas about the connection of earthly existence with the totality of nature or the span of eternity.
The details will differ, but in general a divine or universal mind supplies an answer to the question of how a human individual can live in harmony with the universe. Perhaps religious persons will regard this as a simple-minded caricature, but it is the impression that a nonbeliever gets from the outside, of what it would be like to have a religious worldview.
From Thomas Nagel’s (atheist), Secular Philosophy and the Religious Temperament (Oxford: 2010) pp. 4-5
“You may indeed suppose the world eternal; but as you suppose only a succession of states, in none of which do you find the sufficient reason, and as even any number of worlds does not in the least help you to account for them, it is evident that the reason must be sought elsewhere.” - Gottfried Leibniz (1697)
New post; check it out!
Often I would say yeah, it is easy to miss the magnitude of truths that we deal with in our studies. Just the other day I was reading through Richard Swinburne’s (Oxford philosopher) Existence of God where he was discussing God’s maximal simplicity. Just watching him walk through the attributes of God and explaining them in a philosophical manner was very enriching to me.
I don’t say that because what I was reading was so interesting that it left some emotional mark inside me, but rather that philosophy has an interesting way of expressing theology, or understanding it to be it in a better way. In that sense, the character of God being explained to me in that sort of fashion was quite humbling.
So, I would say that truths pertaining to theology, philosophy, science, and the like, they all have enriching things to say about the character of God. Theology in its exhaustive peculiarity and analysis of God is far more interesting I think than what philosophy or science can offer, but nonetheless, these disciplines all in their respects give us insights into the majesty of God. A reflection of that is surely more heart than head oriented.
Traditionally I am not one to write on the New Atheists, but one individual in particular has always been of keen interest in my studies regarding atheism, science, religion, and topics akin to the like. There is plenty of literature & Continue reading
This is my latest post on Christian Apologetics Alliance (CAA). I recently became a member and am now submitting posts on apologetics! Here is the latest on Richard Dawkins.
…there is no connection between the fascinating philosophical and scientific questions posed by the argument from design and the attacks of September 11. Blind faith and the authority of dogma are dangerous; the view that we can make ultimate sense of the world only by understanding it as the expression of mind or purpose is not. It is unreasonable to think that one must refute the second in order to resist the first.
Nah, I’ve been like mad sick since last Monday. I havent been on the computer much since then. Lol
Haha, I would probably agree. His Epistemology positions and some other ideas (e.g. God as a properly basic belief) are places that I wouldn’t go to. But, he always has the best examples.
For example, the statement “God has designed 800-pound rabbits that live in Cleveland” is clearly testable, clearly falsifiable and indeed clearly false. Testability can’t be taken as a criterion for distinguishing scientific from nonscientific statements. That is because in the typical case individual statements are not verifiable or falsifiable. (Whether ID is Science Isn’t Semantics, 2006)
And my favorite:
Suppose I imagine a certain egregious animal that is a cross between a kangaroo and a dragon fly. Suppose I name it Ferdinand. Then Ferdinand has existence in the mind. Suppose further I report a dream I had about Ferdinand. Is this a case where I am… predicating the dream existence of a being presupposed to exist in the understanding? (God and Other Minds, 1992).
If you are interested, Robert C. Koons, J.P. Moreland and Brandon Rickabaugh (though I am not sure if Brandon’s papers are available PDF online yet) all have written extensive arguments against metaphysical naturalism. Thomas Nagel is of particular interest to me, but I don’t know how much I would use him in an argument (I’m referring to of course, his Mind and Cosmos (2012), but also, his 1974 paper “What Is It Like to be a Bat?”).
Alvin Plantinga is interesting, but he’s an awkward philosopher for me personally.
Not particularly, and it’s not an argument (this is my position on it now) that I find relevant under any circumstance really. It’s an interesting argument against naturalists who wish to be dogmatic on both naturalism and evolution in their relationship to each other, but I don’t think it’s compelling really to rebut naturalism than what other arguments have to offer.
So, no, not really.
Ehhh. I wouldn’t say its an issue of semantics, but philosophy is a science in a more general sense of the word (as it is to be properly and historically understood). Philosophy should not be employed when addressing questions of physical functions (the state of water just below 0 centigrade, the behavior of particles, etc.). In that sense, we are together on that issue.
However, philosophy and its concern for truth and knowledge is where science and philosophy happen to intersect Surely, when a particular field of science breaks off from philosophy (as astronomy, chemistry, and physics all have), the term of a new natural science or empirical science happens to become definitive; more particular than what philosophy is (which is more broad).
That is my position.
I wouldn’t necessarily say that. In furthering what knowledge is and what knowledge amounts to, philosophy is clearly superior to science in a hierarchy of epistemology. Science of course just importantly associated with “knowledge” (from the Greek, scientia); philosophy is also a form of science.
Then you’re missing the point. Hierarchically, Philosophy is epistemically superior to science - and that statement is sound even if science didn’t hinge off of induction. Philosophy is far more general than science and can lay down the particular axioms that some particular field or discipline of science can use in order to function. I addressed this all in the paper. You completely miss the point.
