tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6376955256463224749.post728889733346269716..comments2023-09-07T12:03:43.350-07:00Comments on Theological Sushi: Mind Your Presuppositions or They Will Mind YouB. C. Hodgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02828477115799852133noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6376955256463224749.post-86056937136502235992011-08-24T16:22:04.956-07:002011-08-24T16:22:04.956-07:00Hi B.
"If you presuppose the Bible to be tr...Hi B. <br /><br />"If you presuppose the Bible to be true then how, pray tell, is that empirical?"<br /><br />It isn't. My entire point is that our knowledge must consist of both empirically verifiable data and unverifiable data. The latter requires faith, and all make that leap. The difference between liberals/atheists and orthodox Christians is that one faith is in the report of Scripture and the other has faith that their metaphysical speculations are true without a claimed report from someone who has knowledge of the metaphysical.<br /><br />"Interesting. You are citing personal experience and empirical evidence?"<br /><br />No, I don't think you read me correctly. I am citing empirical evidence (which is personal experience) and faith in a report. Both are needed to know reality (and everyone uses both, whether they admit it or not).<br /><br /> "Regardless, this personal experience seems to have been revealed inconsistently by the divine because there are many who have not experienced it. Oh, and we can bracket out the fact that adherents of other religions often claim this personal experience too."<br /><br />Again, I'm not referring to what everyone experiences in religion. That is more consistent with James' liberalism. I am talking about the necessity of faith in a report in order to know truth. So, yes, many people do make experiential claims concerning their religion. The question we must ask is, Where are you getting this knowledge? Is it pure speculation or gained from a belief in a report? Christianity would answer the latter, not the former. Atheism and Liberalism would answer the former. You might want to pick your bone with them.<br /><br />"Thanks but if this is Theological Sushi I'll have to pass. The Secular China Buffet seems to leave a somewhat better taste in my mouth. :-)"<br /><br />Really? The secular Chinese Buffet is usually fake Chinese food rather than the real deal, but that would be fitting, I guess, since those who reject the report are left with a fabricated view of reality. ;)<br /><br />Thanks for commenting.B. C. Hodgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02828477115799852133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6376955256463224749.post-185388679168356092011-08-24T15:21:16.839-07:002011-08-24T15:21:16.839-07:00"i.e., a presuppositional grid, through which..."i.e., a presuppositional grid, through which we pull all of our other knowledge gained from empirical means."<br /><br />If you presuppose the Bible to be true then how, pray tell, is that empirical?<br /><br />"Knowledge is made up of faith driving experience..."<br /><br />Interesting. You are citing personal experience and empirical evidence? Regardless, this personal experience seems to have been revealed inconsistently by the divine because there are many who have not experienced it. Oh, and we can bracket out the fact that adherents of other religions often claim this personal experience too. <br /><br />Thanks but if this is Theological Sushi I'll have to pass. The Secular China Buffet seems to leave a somewhat better taste in my mouth. :-)BSMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13599662252662686373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6376955256463224749.post-76727989676144906152011-08-24T12:54:29.319-07:002011-08-24T12:54:29.319-07:00BTW, just to clarify, James, I wasn't expectin...BTW, just to clarify, James, I wasn't expecting malicious comments from you, but from many of the liberals (and more likely) atheists that comment on your site. Thanks again.B. C. Hodgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02828477115799852133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6376955256463224749.post-69956773012429681602011-08-24T12:46:56.029-07:002011-08-24T12:46:56.029-07:00James,
Thank you for interacting.
I'm sorry ...James,<br /><br />Thank you for interacting.<br /><br />I'm sorry to point this out, but I'm afraid you've misread me. I said nothing about the Bible being unmediated. But your counterpoint proves my point. You did not mention the Holy Spirit or the ability of God to communicate through language to and through His community using the Bible because you assume naturalism first. Hence, one only has his experiences, etc. to know the truth. Man is on his own. My point is that orthodox Christians believe a report in language, and language can be understood, even when spoken to us by other humans (especially so, therefore, when it is spoken by God).<br /><br />But it's much worse than this, since you did not bother to engage what I said, but rather caricature my position as "fundamentalist" on your site. The point of the post was that both liberals and atheists assume that they can use empiricism to know the legitimacy of a truth claim when the truth claim, "empiricism can discover the nature of reality," cannot be truthfully known, using empiricism. Knowledge can only be known by faith in a report by someone with metaphysical knowledge. Without faith in such a report, NOTHING can be known. Hence, we are left with just whatever everyone wants to believe about his or her experiences (i.e., liberalism, atheism, etc.).<br /><br />You're confusing what I'm saying with the objective versus subjective apprehension of knowledge, and your presupposition is showing. <br /><br />Regarding your personal story, James, I appreciate the feeling that you were predisposed toward a more conservative position, but please note that I am not talking about bias. I am talking about presuppositions in one's methodology of inquiry. You are talking about the former and I am talking about the latter. Presuppositions ALWAYS determine our conclusions. Biases can be removed through study. Hence, I said before that liberalism is everywhere in the academy and in the churches, not just in those we normally identify as "liberal." <br /><br />My definition of "liberal" is not one who does not find his theology in accord with Nicean Christianity, but one whose ultimate source of authority lies in his own experience (e.g., empiricism, spiritual experiences), and not in the belief in a report, such as the Bible. Hence, when you tell me that you rejected the idea that you should defend one's doctrine of Scripture from Scripture. Well, with what would you defend it? A higher authority? Is this not simply an embrace of a liberal worldview? Most evangelicals I know already embrace such a worldview, even though they remain "conservative" in their theology and social ethics. So your story, although probably causing you to feel your new found believes have more explanatory power due to your supposed opposite positions, only confirm to me what we presuppose as true (without questioning it) in Western culture.B. C. Hodgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02828477115799852133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6376955256463224749.post-76670081786236133632011-08-24T12:16:20.495-07:002011-08-24T12:16:20.495-07:00I don't have any malicious fire to offer - sor...I don't have any malicious fire to offer - sorry if you are disappointed. But I will say that the account you offer doesn't fit my own experience. My liberal perspective on the Bible is one that resulted from studying the Bible in a conservative Evangelical context, one which I resisted for as long as I could, but which I ultimately embraced because I don't think it makes sense to defend one's doctrine of Scripture from the evidence in Scripture itself.<br /><br />(I have told quite a bit about my own story on my blog in the past. <a href="http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/2011/06/09/not-born-this-liberal/" rel="nofollow">Here's a link to one such recent post of mine</a>.)<br /><br />Thanks for taking the time to read and interact!James F. McGrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02561146722461747647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6376955256463224749.post-58997070909520054582011-08-24T11:12:25.234-07:002011-08-24T11:12:25.234-07:00I haven't, Truth. But if you would like to, fe...I haven't, Truth. But if you would like to, feel free. I'll brace for myself for incoming and malicious fire. ;)B. C. Hodgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02828477115799852133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6376955256463224749.post-350254696533400682011-08-24T10:41:53.130-07:002011-08-24T10:41:53.130-07:00Ahhhhhhh. (A satisfied sound as I was reading thi...Ahhhhhhh. (A satisfied sound as I was reading this post and drinking my coffee simultaneously).<br /><br />At first I didn't see where you were going with respect to McGrath's post. But reading further, I see that you went far deeper and far better than McGrath's post.<br /><br />Very, very good.<br /><br />Have you posted a comment linking your response in McGrath's thread?<br /><br />If not, would you mind if I assisted? I think your article deserves wide readership.<br /><br />Thanks Hodge.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.com