Debate b/t Mr Naturalist and Mr Evidentialist

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by puritansailor

I studied epistlemology a long time ago. It is not an easy subject. I do know that words have definition. Some things are concrete. That is something to work from. Redifining words is how we end up with Liberal Theologians. i.e. N.T. Wrights definition of the righteousness of God.

Randy, you also have to keep in mind that even though these words have a basic meaning which you may find in the dictionary, they can take on more nuance and specific applications in the various communities in which they are used. Presuppositionalism is fighting in the community of philosophy, hence the more philosophical spin on their words.

Let's take for example the word "format."
For computer folks, it becomes a verb indicating the rearranging of your disk, or a noun as the layout of a program.
For philosophers it is the structure of debate and discussion.
For publishers, it is the structure and layout of the printed text.

The same basic meaning, but difference applications within the community it is used.

If you want to understand Bahnsen and VanTil, you have to do more than just read the dictionary, but understand the context in which they are arguing. If you tried to read a technical manual for the electrical system of a nuclear powered steam turbine, you would be thrown for a loop because the words would seem foreign, and the dictionary would not help you one bit. You would have to first learn the vocab use in that tech field.

This, I think is one of the main obstacles to Evidentialists and Presuppositionalist coming to agreement over many things. Evidentialism tends to have a larger following among the laymen and speak in more simple language. They try to read Vantil (if they've even heard of him) and it's a completely foreign language. But a philosophy student would know exactly what VanTil is saying.

All this to say, that we all need to exercise more caution and patience to ensure we understand what the other is saying before we jump to incorrect conclusions and strain fellowship with brothers who would otherwise agree if we understood each other better.

I understand that. I even understand that you define a word in context also. But I am sure that my point still stands valid. I wasn't necessarily trying to understand Van Til or Bahnsen. I was asking some questions about Presup based upon common knowledge which is the level most people operate on. I have heard the charges between Clark and Van Til. I read about them years ago. I have forgotten so much. When Chris asked me what I thought of the quotes I read I said I agreed with what I read. I am sure others could bring out other things that they disagree with concerning Van Til that I may find rather existential in nature.

My main concern in my original question was why don't we get on the same page and acknowledge that evidence is important as well as a persons presuppositions.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

Originally posted by Draught Horse
I notice that a lot of my posts can be pointed, too. The reason that is because of the medium we use to communicate. The medium is not the message, but it does condition the meaning. Message boards lack the "humaness" that personal conversation has. When people act sharp with me, I give them the benefit of the doubt until I know better.

A lot of people, people who know me well, have told me that I can be a jerk on message boards (actually, what they said is, "Jacob, people don't realize what a sweet, wonderful man you really are.") Moral of the story--message boards condition the response.

I semi disagree with you Jacob. Tersness and harsh name calling are two different things. An attitude can be detected. If that wasn't true you wouldn't be able to see the passion and compassion in the scriptures.

By the way. As a man I am not so sure I am comfortable with being called sweet by the guys.

I never called you a name.

Did I say you called me a name? You claimed you were called names such as heretic in another thread we were discussing similar stuff. I do think you are to harsh in your attitude sometimes. You turn people off more by how you say stuff than by what you say. If you called me a name or I thought you did, I have already forgotten about it. I was just pointing out that harshness and other emotion can be detected in posting. I do disagree with you about my having a blind faith. I guess you believe that a uniform creation can only exist in a persons blind faith, or did I missunderstand you?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Paul,

How do you define actual proof?

As in an illustration I expounded earlier, a student questioned a Prof about his existence. The Prof replied, "To whom shall I address an answer concerning the question?"

At what level is reality acknowledged as fact?

[Edited on 9-5-2005 by puritancovenanter]

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Okay, I am asking you these questions because you have worked on this at a much more farther level of understanding than I have. I want to know your conclusions.

Is there a point where blind faith is acceptable and not only acceptable but necessary?