# Dialectical Tensions in unbelieving worldviews



## cih1355 (Jun 28, 2008)

Unbelieving worldviews can have various dialectical tensions within them such as tensions between the rational and the irrational, between unity and diversity, between universals and particulars, and so on. Can anyone give examples of how those tensions are found in different worldviews?


----------



## Hippo (Jun 28, 2008)

A classic would be the Mormon or Islamic worldview claiming to accept the Bible but having to re-write (without any logic behind the re-write) the Bible to prevent it disproving their own beliefs.

Or the atheist worldview claiming to believe in logic when the acceptance of logic is arbitrary and alien to its own presupositions that their is no God.

Does this make sense?


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 28, 2008)

With some eastern religions, they claim that all is one, and that all else is illusion. Then the issue becomes how does the one give rise to the illusion? You do not need to strive for oneness, because you are already there.

CT


----------



## InevitablyReformed (Jun 28, 2008)

ChristianTrader said:


> With some eastern religions, they claim that all is one, and that all else is illusion. Then the issue becomes how does the one give rise to the illusion? You do not need to strive for oneness, because you are already there.
> 
> CT



Are you speaking of what is called "monism?" If so, could you further elaborate on monistic icoherencies?

Thanks


----------



## cih1355 (Jun 30, 2008)

Hippo said:


> A classic would be the Mormon or Islamic worldview claiming to accept the Bible but having to re-write (without any logic behind the re-write) the Bible to prevent it disproving their own beliefs.
> 
> Or the atheist worldview claiming to believe in logic when the acceptance of logic is arbitrary and alien to its own presupositions that their is no God.
> 
> Does this make sense?




Can you explain why the atheistic worldview cannot account for the laws of logic?


----------



## Grymir (Jun 30, 2008)

Ah yes, you have hit upon the crux of philosophy. What a great question. Plato or Aristotle? The two greats. Moderns trivialize it and try to escape into the definitions. Realist or nomilist? Ah yes, what is, is. Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. I think, therefore I am. hmm.

And I didn't even bring up Barth, but that's for another day.


----------



## Hippo (Jun 30, 2008)

cih1355 said:


> Hippo said:
> 
> 
> > A classic would be the Mormon or Islamic worldview claiming to accept the Bible but having to re-write (without any logic behind the re-write) the Bible to prevent it disproving their own beliefs.
> ...



I would suggest that you read what Bahnsen says on this subject, it is a compelling if complex argument that I could not do justice to..


----------

