207 reputation
16
bio website sietsmacomputers.nl
location Groningen, The Netherlands
age
visits member for 2 years, 5 months
seen Apr 23 at 14:01

:]


Feb
13
comment Is a “skeptical viewpoint” more objective than “Christian viewpoint” in matters of theology?
So, to conclude, a skeptic admits he doesn't know the answer to the first questions, but that doesn't hold him back to participate in discussions about christian morality, for instance.
Feb
13
comment Is a “skeptical viewpoint” more objective than “Christian viewpoint” in matters of theology?
"A "skeptical" viewpoint is thus, in my estimation, so focused on first questions that it loses its ability to solve more practical questions. As such, its "objectivity" is thus bogged down in matters of less importance, and hence less capable of dealing with the implications of the matter." is not true either. Weekly I have a discussion with a group sharing the 'christian viewpoint', as you call it, and some members of it told me how they appreciated my attitude: "but if ... is true, why is it that ...". They said these questions made them rethink what they thought they knew.
Feb
13
comment Is a “skeptical viewpoint” more objective than “Christian viewpoint” in matters of theology?
Secondly, 'The skeptic then goes on to apply traditional "scientific method" to evaluate the claim - make a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, analyze the result.' would be an absurd way of reasoning, as there is not the slightest possibility to test the existence of a meta-physical entity. This is absolutely not (!) the skeptical way of tackling a problem. The skeptic, however, can postulate the existence of such and entity, and see if it leads to paradoxes, or what so ever. Assuming that something exists may lead to very insightful perspectives
Feb
13
comment Is a “skeptical viewpoint” more objective than “Christian viewpoint” in matters of theology?
I ran out of space, but I'm not done yet
Feb
13
comment Is a “skeptical viewpoint” more objective than “Christian viewpoint” in matters of theology?
Great to see you tried to answer the question yourself. Let me, as both a christian and skeptic, motivate my down vote. Firstly, I agree with your claim that "both [skeptics and christian non-skeptics] suggest there is a transcendent truth". Of course they do, otherwise they could not communicate. But you don't say what this means; and what it means, is by example: both sides agree there is an answer to the question 'Does God exists?' yet the skeptic way of reasoning leaves you saying "I'm curious, but I don't know", yet the christian non-skeptic answer is positively: "Of course there is!"
Feb
12
comment Is a “skeptical viewpoint” more objective than “Christian viewpoint” in matters of theology?
This type of apologetic reasoning "... even if one can prove that evolution is wrong, that would not prove intelligent design ..." has been addressed over and over again by Richard Dawkins. In his discussion with Bill O'Reilly, most of Dawkin's criticism can be brought down to the objection: "It is a remarkable piece of illogic to say because science can't fill a particular gap, therefore we have to turn to Christianity"
Feb
12
comment What evidence is there to support the position that the Bible is truly the Word of God to mankind?
@AffableGeek I'm not a theologian or historian, so it's no wonder I made an error there. However, I referred to it to show that 2 things. 1) A book that claims it is reliable doesn't refer to the Bible as we have it. 2) The development of the canon has been a process, in which humans have discussed whether or not a book should be included. And discussion implies arguments and maybe even voting.
Feb
11
comment What evidence is there to support the position that the Bible is truly the Word of God to mankind?
I like this contribution very much, especially this: "As many of such passages have to be interpreted the right way to show the validity of their statements, one can argue the validity of such claims". You might want to add that the justification of a single passage of a book (for instance, the historical correctness of slavery in Egypt), doesn't guarantee the correctness of any other book. Clearly, the story of Noah's ark is unrelated to a moralistic letter of Paul