The BIble

Post Reply New Topic

I believe that I am a deliberate act of God, but I don't think I need to be infallible for that to be true. The Bible is man's experience of God, it is just as busted and aspirational as we are. I certainly don't think one can necessarily inductively reach a belief in the Christian God just by picking the Bible up. My faith is based on the idea that I think that rationally God exists and the God I would most like to be true is one of Christ. Certainly there is a selection bias in there and I make no bones about it. I don't see it as any more irrational or contrived than any other world view. One of the most interesting things I picked up when looking at worldview in philosophy, be it realism or anti-realism or even solipsism. All are equally logically coherent and reconcilable with the evidence. The best philosopher I ever had a chat with was Thomas Nagel, an atheist and one of the most famous philosophers of his generation. He realised that each view was equally testable and coherent, what interested him is why we pick one over another?



Certainly, I don't believe God is often a paratrooper. The God I believe in is a personal being that has his own purposes but I think he is worthwhile. I come pretty close to Christian Realism, although I find the popular pessimism inherent in the wealthy west to be quite tedious and boring.



Best wishes for her health, its a rather awful week. I miss the winter of the US and have not seen winter since the one in NY last year. I won't see another until this time next year. I feel like I am living in the world of perpetual summer but at least here in Aus I have an air con. It has also been a rough week for me, one of my Army mates died in the mountains of NY.

I can't say that I agree 100% with all your conclusions, but this is one of the most insightful posts I think I've ever seen from another Christian. The biggest difference I see is I tend to put a lot more stock in the Bible, but lately I've often been reminded in reading posts from others is that never once has scripture ever been mandatory for salvation, which I see as the foundation for Christian faith. God's grace and mercy existed before the Bible, and they would still be applicable if the Bible ever disappeared.

Big props on mentioning Nagel. I've been wondering if anyone else out there had reached the same or similar conclusion I have on that very thing (equally testable and coherent). I can't formulate a good response to that, nor do I care to, but I suppose one could say just the opposite: They are all equally UNtestable and INcoherent.

Cheers mate. The more I study worldview the more it becomes a matter of philosophical bootstrapping. There is no real ground of reality (or anti-realism) that is capable of being reached through raw induction without massive circular reasoning. How we view the world is a matter of coherence. The really interesting debates are about showing two portions to be mutual exclusive, something Alvin Plantinga is a really good at. So if you present a person with a coherent view, that has made an effort to reconcile it to itself, the most interesting question is why they picked it? Something Nagel really gets into. Most beginners to philosophy generally go straight to the classical fights and completely miss the really interesting stuff that looks at our presuppositions.



Well I know more of philosophy than I do of the Bible. So I cannot uphold inerrancy because it would not be honest of me to do so (I am simply not equipped to make a call either way). My two undergrad majors were philosophy and history so I can approach it through the latter. As a book it is quite remarkable and the most important parts (including the Passion story) are heavily vindicated by further examination. Although I think we can see pretty solid evidence of other parts being inaccurate (which calls into question literalism vs some other interpretation etc). We can also see solid evidence of parts that were thought inaccurate that actually turned out true. I know people who have tried to iron it out and I am interested to investigate it further but for the time being, I want to avoid as much of the historical jujitsu as possible and focus on the essentials.

That's why I'm an atheist now. The moment I realized "all are equally logically coherent and reconcilable with the evidence" is the moment I figured that I should just go with the position that makes the least assumptions and doesn't add extra entities unnecessarily.

Sorry to hear that. Captain Paul McKay I am assuming. People don't seem to understand the effects of war and the death toll from it continue long after the official fighting is over. He is another reason why I detest state sponsored conflict.

My condolences.

a collection of nonsense just liked all the other "holy books"

The view with the least assumptions is solipsism or some form of anti-realism. Atheism is nothing like a default position.



Yeah, he was assigned to my unit during officer training, I had a major back injury and he used to pack march with me as part of my physio. Although I support the War in Afghanistan, it pisses me off that people can survive and still be killed by conflict. He was as tough as they get, moved like he was bulletproof.