Because rationality isn’t blind. Universes individually aren’t eternal, they start. They don’t ‘cycle’. Fideism is in complete harmony with eternal nature, trying to make nature fit some lesser faith is… immature. My development was arrested by that for 40 years.
Rationality of any variety does require presuppositions, however. (I.e., not all rationalities are the same, nor are they all true.)
Yeah, rational ones.
There can be rational ideas that oppose each other.
1 Like
Not in this instance. Wave/particle duality, Heisenberg, RoS, Bell, superposition are all intrinsic rational paradoxes. Nothing opposes them. I can’t think of any rational opposition to uniformitarianism and the ultimate steady state. I only see irrational opposition driven by immature faith here.
So you say. Yet, saying something is rational does not make it so. Neither does stating that the beliefs of others are more immature make it so. I’ve watched your interactions here on the forum for a while, Martin. You so confidently claim that other people’s faith-based views are irrational and yet when your own views are scrutinised you retreat behind “Ah! But my views are irrefutably rational because… I say they are”. How is that different from saying “The Bible is God’s word because I believe that it is”?
Look, obviously, you are more intelligent and knowledgeable about science than I am - indeed, more articulate. Nevertheless, your forceful assertions do little to convince me (or others here?) of the truth of your position. By all means, call all my ideas immature and make bald unprovable claims to rationality, that is your right. But know that all it is doing it reinforcing my belief that your emperor has no clothes. And something tells me that I am not the only one who thinks this way either…
3 Likes
En garde mon Brave. I’m a sabre man.
It’s a faith position that has to be stated unequivocally, especially here, Liam. I’m 66. Until 2 years ago, for over 50 years, my faith diminishingly demanded that nature fit to it. That is immature. Period. It is immature in all of the helpless billions whose faith operates that way. They aren’t necessarily. As you and all the moderators and many others here demonstrate. Their faith position is. That paradox I know is true. My superb Rogerian therapist is a fundamentalist. And it’s impossible from within any faith but emergent Christianity to get to this point. Well you can get to it alone, but don’t you dare try and discuss it.
There is absolutely no point pussy footing around, life is too short, forceful assertion gets attention. It did me. Iron to iron. Cold steel to… Not only is it immature to twist reason, it’s Christianly intellectually 150 years out of date since Kierkegaard at least (it’s even in Kant and Pascal; Enlightenment thinking). As a Christian he was alone in realising this. It did not make him faithless. On the contrary, it made him more faithful, only faithful, it’s called fideism. Faith transcending reason. Twisting nature to fit faith is not faithful, is not faith transcending reason, it is fearful and ignorant. It is also immature with respect to philosophy and science. And faith. Faith deserves better than whinging - not by you - at Dawkins and proclaiming any kind of creationism (God the Designer?!) and intervention beyond the absolutely minimal bottom line.
Considering all the insane, toxic dross and drivel that is tolerated here, to what end I do not know, this faith position is absolutely, in your face essential. And at least 400 years late. Twisting reason for faith is not in Christ or Paul. It’s in our disordered passions. I have yet to see any response by any BioLogos luminary to it, which is fascinating.
My sword rests.
Thanks for your forthright reply. I always appreciate a frank and honest exchange of ideas. However, I’m afraid that rather than run me through though, your sabre may have simply gone woosh over my head. Perhaps, that is my own lack of capacity at fault.
I must say I do find this very perplexing about your activity here on the forum. If my fellow moderators and I tolerate such “insane, toxic dross and drivel”. Why bother interacting here at all? Wouldn’t you be more comfortable popping off to another forum where you might be able to interact with more kindred spirits? A genuine question for you to think about, not really expecting a written answer.
Although, we can continue the conversation via PM if you wish.
The failure to engage, to communicate is entirely mine Liam. Well done for ducking my sabre slash!
But we’re talking. Thanks to you. And BioLogos.
More than happy to be public, as it gets the subject out there in the forum, the agora of ideas. It’s entertainment after all.
I have no kindred spirits Liam : ) not even on Ship of Fools. Which is the best there is. There are many liberal evangelicals, but. None can do eternity. In the entire Anglosphere. I had to drive 30 miles to meet privately with a cloistered priest who got me, met me where I live, over a year ago. And if I found such internet peers, what’s the point? I want to engage in the marketplace with all the other boys and girls. And marketplaces attract nutters. Look at me. Now I’m mad BUT! BioLogos tolerates much crazier than me. And crazy tho’ I be, my fideism is not. It is perfectly orthodox. And until I started saying it here, no one did. Which is remarkable considering the standard of education. But not when one considers that this is an evangelical site. Such faith is social and complies with the group think.
Did I catch an edit? A question that’s gone? On fideism? Presumably you answered it yourself.
Faith has to humble itself naked before the fully, really arrayed emperor of reason. No matter how badly I introduce him, no matter how gracelessly, how bluntly, he sits comfortably, elegantly, unchallengably enthroned. He is not to be trifled with. Whinging, sneering, doubting, yeah-butting will be met with that gaze.
I’ll have to switch metaphors won’t I?
Because she is Sophia, the eternal empress of reason. And she’s no Maja.
1 Like
That is what people say when they want to disregard rationality to speak whatever meaningless nonsense they want about God in order to use the word “God” for whatever inconsistent rhetoric and manipulation they choose.
The bounds of logic and rationality are upon us for what we say to be meaningful and real. For the consistency of logic and rationality is what separates reality from dreams and inconsistent childish demands.
However, it is wise to exercise considerable caution and skepticism when someone claims that logic and rationality demand that we accept something, for this is far more rarely the case than what most people claim. Most often this is more a product of the premises they choose to accept than anything else and we are hardly required to accept those ourselves. But in that case it is not matter of idolizing rationality but a matter of where they are putting their faith – in God or in these premises they choose to believe in.
But the very notion of contrasting our faith in God with faith in the premises we believe is also somewhat problematic for how do we separate God from them in our own mind?
The Bible says he is inscrutable.
1 Like
They are certainly prevenient of Him, He’s that humble; He has no choice. There is only one now in God and that doesn’t include the eternity of all dead previous ones, let alone all unborn future ones. So there is nothing to disallow. And He obviously wills to intervene by incarnation, nothing else.
You are badly mistaken.
1 Like
I certainly wouldn’t make a claim like that (saying this and nothing else) to limit God in such a way.
What such way? I do not limit God like Martin does.
I would be if anyone could credibly, rationally, faithfully demonstrate otherwise.
They have for you. It worked for me once upon a time. George Müller was a hero of mine from when I lived in Bristol 42 years ago. He still is. But not for all the same reasons.
So he isn’t credible, rational or faithful? Which?
OK, Gentlemen, I have created a new topic since the Faith vs Reason dialogue is off-topic as far as Jesus and Aliens are concerned. I realise this thread is a monster of my own creation, and so I’m taking personal responsibility for it.
That means…
- @Klax and @Dale, y’all play nice now.
- No one-sentence responses to each other. If you can’t think of a paragraph sized reply, please don’t reply.
- No endlessly repeating the same old tired arguments. No more George Muller or Maggie’s testimony for Dale. No more appealing to Kierkegaard, etc. etc. for Martin. I have a lot of time for you both, but you both really need to get some new material.
Please, please don’t make me be ‘grumpy mod’ and have to delete posts, etc. I really don’t like doing that.
Thanks! 
3 Likes