Just a note though: This may seem sort of nit-picky, and even common sense at times, but remember- Nash is trying to create an air tight case. He's explaining every little piece so that nothing is left to be questioned.
A. Irrationality vs. Rationality
The ultimate irrationality is to believe that one is God.Non believers are trying to say that Christianity is irrational.
Evidentialism- says that it's immoral and irresponsible to believe anything without sufficient evidence. People use a bit of this when they say "No proof, No God".
How to go about responding to a thing like that...
First off, Alvin Plantinga vs. Antony Flew.
They had a major debate that started with a comment from Antony, "I will not accept a single thing you say, unless you prove that God exists". Plantinga responded with, "I don't have to". They argued back and forth like that for a while (Pretty much like children do), until things really got moving. The reason for Plantinga's response has to do with the burden of proof. In this instance, it was Flew's burden, and he was trying to push it off onto Plantinga. If Plantinga had conceded that, then he would have been backed into a corner. Now, his response didn't mean that he had no answer, or even that he wasn't going to answer, just that he didn't have to, in order for his points to be valid. Besides just burden of proof though, Plantinga had another point. Flew was going off of Evidentialism. If there's no proof, there's no argument. Well, the way to defeat that would be, where the proof to support that statement? You see, statements that are "concrete" like that leave out reason and logic. They are logically self defeating.
B. Two Refutations of Evidentialism.
First one is just the thing brought up in the paragraph on Plantinga. Show that it's logically self defeating.
Another way to shoot down Evidentialism
It goes against many foundational beliefs.
a. External minds. Technically there's no proof for them. What if there really are no other minds? Just ourselves? That's ridiculous. We know there are other minds. It's a presupposition we were given.
b. The Real World. No real "proof" for it. What if it's all in our heads? All imagination? Again, that's absurd. We were given a presupposition that says the world is real. This isn't the matrix.
c. Memories. How do we know they really happened? Again, how do we know we didn't just make them up? Because we know. We may not be able to prove it, but we know our memories are real.
So, If they ask for Proof for God, ask for proof for these things. That's one way to get their attention.
(Just a note: Nash isn't saying proof is bad. He's just pointing out that sometimes reason and common sense are what we need, not "proof".)
C. Evidence
1. Propositional- an argument. (Logical Proof).This kind of evidence isn't required for all situations. It can be very useful, but is not a necessity when it comes to some things. (ie. memories, real world, external minds, etc...)
Its a matter of having vs. needing.
2. Direct Experience- Sensory evidence. (When it comes to Apologetics, this really means Personal Testimony).
Relies heavily on "I feel..." statements. Examples, "I feel God calling me to this..." or "I felt God's presence in the room".
I think Nash also puts common sense into this category. Presuppositions. Sometimes we just know things.
A mini rant from me:
Personal stories can be hugely important when ministering to someone. Especially if there a person that's not interested in all this logic business. When it comes to personal stories, someone can't say "No, You didn't feel like that." They can disagree about why you felt the way you did, but they can't deny what your opinion is. When it comes to logic, someone can completely refute it, leaving you with relatively few options. Sometimes arguments over logic and little details can hinder people's want to become Christian. We're supposed to be love. Yes, giving a logical answer is important, but if we forget the cool stuff the Holy Spirit does in us, and in others, we've completely missed the point.
D. Reformed Epistemology
Two parts:1. Belief Forming Mechanisms (Basically presuppositions)
For example: causation.
Don't have to teach a child these things- they just know.
2. Triggering Conditions
Even if we have presuppositions, we need outside things (taken in by our senses- also God given) to trigger them.
Tomorrow is more on the rationality of the Belief in God. Stay tuned. :)
Your mini rant reminded me a little of political persuasion. I had read something recently (can't remember where it is) that basically said that people are not usually convinced by proof. People are really only convinced by emotional or moral appeals. So if you want to convince someone of your political opinions, you cannot use logic and proof, because most people don't respond to that. You must instead tell a story, and show why your political opinion is the only moral choice.
ReplyDeleteThis is because the way we as people understand things is by identifying with them. If the listener can identify with the person speaking, can see things from their perspective, can create an emotional connection, then things can be learned or understood.
So too in being a witness, if another person can personally identify with your story (this doesn't mean they did the exact same things as in your story), but if they believe it and can see the world from your point of view, then this is much more convincing than pure logic and reasoning.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/magazine/the-mind-of-a-flip-flopper.html
Delete