Keller prattles that we rationalists and naturalists rely wrongly on advocating evidence for positions. He prattles that defeats itself as no one can verify that itself! No, he is merely prattling the case for faith, the we just say so of credulity!
No one can vuchsafe God without evidence or otherwise faith is indeed blind! He quotes the stilly Terry Eagleton that even Dawkins lives by faith in that no one has real evidence for everything. But that is a strawman against rationalism as claims vary with the amount of evidence required! As our saying goes:’ Extraordinary claims requre extraordinary evidence.” And against Keith Ward and William James, that doesn’t force us never to get anywhere!
James and John Haught claim that faith just means certitude after one has enough evidence for a belief, yet that means narrow-mindesness rather than the open-mind of tentative certainty!
Alister Earl McGrath avers that faith envelopes people’s whole beings, bu that means again that narrow-mindedness.
William Kingdon Clifford makes his case whilst James merely prattle his faith!
Keller wants to make that fallacy of ambiguity with using faith as trust rather than as blind faith. We rationalists ever debunk such sophistry!
Finally, Keller prattles that Richard Swinburne rightly notes that theism can account for Existence, our being here and ” humans with an indelible moral sense.”
No, to the contrary,because Nature herself does all that without any divine influence.
Theists ever make the fallacies of personal incredulity and the argument from ignorance. They query how could Existence be orderly and regular and have laws withut His imposition? No, they inhere in Nature! Theists have it backwards. Were there God, He’d depend on those things and thus could not be that Primary Cause!
No God was neeeded for Existence. Evolution brought us forth and our moral sense!
Keller pratles that we cannot demand complete evidence, no, ti’s theists who use faith as he does who do that!
Theists get matters backwards!
I suggest for those who want good matter against creationism to subscribe to Dr Sad blog :httpanticreationism.wordpress.com
Are you ready for more against Keller’s sophistry? More yet to come!
John Hick claims that God has to hide Himself -epistemic distance- so that He won’t override our free wills, and He does that by making matters ambiguous in relation to His very existence. Tobe sure, he is an errantist- the Bible does contain errors. Now, that egregious anthology posits that He portrayed Himself to several people. For inerrantists-fundamentalists, He did indeed show His backside! For Hick, that is metaphorical. OK. Yet, the verses themselves metaphorically do show that He interferes in the Cosmos.leaving traces such that nay, He reveals Himself already without infringing on those free wills.
Yet, no ambiguity exists but rather supernaturalists using the pareidolia of intent and design when only teleonomy and patterns exist per Lamberth’s argument from pareidolia.
Per his teleonomic argument, the evidence purports only teleonomy- mechanism- no wanted outcomes so that to add Him in the form of director of directed evolution, not only violates the Ockham with His convoluted, ad hoc assumptions but also contradicts rather than complements science!
No directed evolution exists!No ambiguity exists to suggest that He just might have a starring role!
Hick uses epistemic distance as part of his theodicy. He also uses the all or nothing and slipping slope fallacies to make his big one of the straw man that we nationalists want the easy way out by having this Earth otherwise. Nay! Ti’s he and other supernaturalists who claim that Heaven is such a paradise; we merely have to note that his response boomerangs on him!
Therefore, Fr. Meslier’s the problem of Heaven indicts God as that monster!
To be consistent, no hobgoblin of little minds, He should have made it the same here as there without those horrid tests of evil!
A guarantee of no wrongdoing with free will as in Heaven would indeed be required here!
Hick guesses that in Heaven there will be analogous virtues, and that eventually- after some serving tiem in some purgatory- all will find salvation!
With Robert Porter, we rationalists note that even if not like in Heaven, our free wills could exert themselves with good, better and best as the contraries rather than good and evil. Some people now even, without suffering great evils themselves,he notes, help others. Therefore, why not all people be such? And he notesthat natural and man-made disasters rob people of their free will such that they amouont to unrequited evils.
Such is why I call theologians comedians!
Hick is therefore universalistic in his theology. He is also inclusivistic, claiming that more than one way takes people to Heaven.
He is a unitarian Christian- Yeshua was not God! See his several books.
He thinks that maybe parapsycholigy can help supernaturalists in their apologetics [ at least did].
He sides with us against the inerrantists about science, but claims that any religion is better than none, because without one, people remain selfish! Nay, that just doesn’t ring! He obivously overlooks the many acts of altruism done each day! He overlooks all that carnage done in His name! He know that we rationalists behave well. He claims that we have no bottom-line ground for morality. Nay, Michael Shermer makes many good points in ‘ The Science of Good and Evil’. Other rationalists also adduce avidence why we do have a good morality. Google covenant morality for humanity- the presumption of humanism to see my take on objective and subjective morality being intertwined!
The article from Undeniably Atheist underscores Alister Earl McGrath’s misunderstanding of rationalism and naturalism. What do you opine about the article and him or about one or more of the other articles there?
Please read any articles transposed here and comment upon them!
Writer,Michael Prescott, was a follower of the cult-leader Ayn Rand. In distancing himself from her , he has renounced rationalism. He had an experience that convinced him that the paranormal might be real and that rationalists just aren’t open-minded to fathom that.No, he is so open-minded that he lost his reason!He went from a cult that falsely claims to be rationalist but actually follows the logical fallacies and unconfirmed intuitions of a closed-minded woman and her closed-system: she and Leonard Peikoff state the forever-known Truth, no addition is possible!
Prescott should have searched for a rational answer to his experience. I felt as though I were in ‘ “The Twilight Zone” a few times when matters seemed so at odds with my memory, but on further experience, I found that no, a rational answer existed. I am a schizotypal, who, unlike my fellow ones, abjures what Paul Kurtz calls ” The Transcendental Temptation,” the twin superstitions – the supernatural and the paranormal; I would know that I was not an alien abductte!
Prescott is akin to those former communists who became libertarians- jumped from one extreme ideology to another. ” Faith doth that to people.” Fr. Griggs
Paranormalists claim the ad hoc explanation that skeptics provide an inhibitory influence on their works! Those of those two temptations just use one rationalization after another ,schizophrenically!