October 2021
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Books

To Love and Cherish

Doing Apologetics

Christianity: The Basics

What is Wrong with Social Justice

Christianity and Secularism

Evidence for the Bible

Christian Idealism

Tuesday, February 16th, 2021 by Elgin Hushbeck

I recently read an article by Eric Scot English, asking, “Do Evangelicals Really Believe in God?”  English agued evangelicals have an Idealistic faith.  “Idealistic faith is more about the ability to construct an idealized ‘truth’ about God rather than an actual truth. It’s a faith that has more to do with us than God.” (emp. in original).   While true of all, progressives, according to English, move past this taking a “leap of faith” to Christian realism. “Realism allows for the demonstration of a faith that is authentically ‘real’ instead of idealized.”

There is a lot of truth in the first part of his argument. English draws upon Kierkegaard’s beliefs, for which there is a lot to be said.  Christianity is more about transformational experience than rational disputes over doctrine. Still, even though I agree with Kierkegaard on this, I do not follow him into his rejection of reason.  

As such, I find English’s second part artificial, if not a little self-serving. I think it can safely be said that no one understands God. As I write in my forthcoming book, Faith and Reason,

 “In one respect, there is only one correct answer to the question, what do you believe about God? Not enough. After all, God is infinite; we are finite. How could we ever hope to have a complete understanding of God? Thus, a common experience when learning about God is realizing how much you do not know. Put another way, how much there is still left to know?”

This is not a question of realism vs. idealism. We all know too little, and we all tend to fill in the gaps in ways that best fit us and our existing beliefs. This tendency is why prayer and Bible study are so important. Done correctly, these challenge us; they change us.

I would agree that far too often, we project our faith on others. As I write, “A quick way to end up in trouble is to see the Bible as mainly discussing what others should be doing.  Sadly, this has been demonstrated far too often in history.”  Still, I do not see this as an issue of realism vs. idealism, or even progressive vs. evangelicalism, but as a universal problem.

The solution? To realize there is God, and there is also the Body of Christ.  I do not assume everything I believe is correct or that everyone who disagrees is wrong.

“We are all fallen and fallible, prone to mistakes and errors. This is where others come in. We all make mistakes, but we do not make the same mistakes. Discussing with others is the best way to discover your mistakes while helping others discover theirs.”

Rather than labeling each other, we should spend more time talking to each other. This is talking to, not talking at. We may not agree; in fact, we probably won’t. Hopefully, we will come to a better understanding of each other, our views, and why we hold them.  We can break down the stereotypes that exist on both sides.  In this way, we can get past our idealized views of why the other side is wrong and come to a better understanding of the real reasons they hold their beliefs.  Maybe even what we can learn from them.

Hebrews 11:9-16

Thursday, February 26th, 2015 by Elgin Hushbeck

A verse by verse study of Hebrews
V    Accessing The Work (11:1-12:13)
    A   The Means – Faith (11:1-40)
        1    A definition of Faith (11:1-3)
        2    Faith to Abraham (11:4-19)
        3    Faith to Moses (11:20-28)
        4    Faith of the Exodus (11:29-31)
        5    Faith – Ongoing (11:32-38)
        6    Link (11:39-40)
    B   The Method – Look to Jesus (12:1-13)

http://www.consider.org/Classes/Hebrews/OutlineShort.htm

http://www.consider.org/Classes/Hebrews/OutlineLong.htm

Hebrews 11:4-8

Thursday, February 26th, 2015 by Elgin Hushbeck

A verse by verse study of Hebrews
V    Accessing The Work (11:1-12:13)
    A   The Means – Faith (11:1-40)
        1    A definition of Faith (11:1-3)
        2    Faith to Abraham (11:4-19)
        3    Faith to Moses (11:20-28)
        4    Faith of the Exodus (11:29-31)
        5    Faith – Ongoing (11:32-38)
        6    Link (11:39-40)
    B   The Method – Look to Jesus (12:1-13)

http://www.consider.org/Classes/Hebrews/OutlineShort.htm

http://www.consider.org/Classes/Hebrews/OutlineLong.htm

Hebrews 11:2-4

Wednesday, February 25th, 2015 by Elgin Hushbeck

A verse by verse study of Hebrews
V    Accessing The Work (11:1-12:13)
   A   The Means – Faith (11:1-40)
        1    A definition of Faith (11:1-3)
        2    Faith to Abraham (11:4-19)

        3    Faith to Moses (11:20-28)
        4    Faith of the Exodus (11:29-31)
        5    Faith – Ongoing (11:32-38)
        6    Link (11:39-40)
    B   The Meathod – Look to Jesus (12:1-13)

http://www.consider.org/Classes/Hebrews/OutlineShort.htm

http://www.consider.org/Classes/Hebrews/OutlineLong.htm

 

Hebrews 10:35-11:1

Thursday, February 5th, 2015 by Elgin Hushbeck

A verse by verse study of Hebrews
    E    E. Closing Exhortation (10:19-39)
        1    Our new status (10:19-21)
        2    Draw near to God (10:22-25)
        3    Keep sinning no sacrifice (10:26-27)
        4    Analogy – Breaking the Laws of Moses (10:28-31)
        5    Confidence in past suffering (10:32-35)
        6    God is trustworthy (10:36-37)
        7    Link (10:38-9)
V    Accessing The Work (11:1-12:13)

    A   The Means – Faith (11:1-40)
    B   The Meathod – Look to Jesus (12:1-13)

http://www.consider.org/Classes/Hebrews/OutlineShort.htm

http://www.consider.org/Classes/Hebrews/OutlineLong.htm

Hebrews 10:32-34

Thursday, February 5th, 2015 by Elgin Hushbeck

A verse by verse study of Hebrews
    E    E. Closing Exhortation (10:19-39)
        1    Our new status (10:19-21)
        2    Draw near to God (10:22-25)
        3    Keep sinning no sacrifice (10:26-27)
        4    Analogy – Breaking the Laws of Moses (10:28-31)
        5    Confidence in past suffering (10:32-35)
        6    God is trustworthy (10:36-37)
        7    Link (10:38-9)
V    Accessing The Work (11:1-12:13)
    A   The Means – Faith (11:1-40)
    B   The Meathod – Look to Jesus (12:1-13)

http://www.consider.org/Classes/Hebrews/OutlineShort.htm

http://www.consider.org/Classes/Hebrews/OutlineLong.htm

Hebrews 10:26-31

Thursday, February 5th, 2015 by Elgin Hushbeck

A verse by verse study of Hebrews
    E    E. Closing Exhortation (10:19-39)
        1    Our new status (10:19-21)
        2    Draw near to God (10:22-25)
        3    Keep sinning no sacrifice (10:26-27)
        4    Analogy – Breaking the Laws of Moses (10:28-31)

        5    Confidence in past suffering (10:32-35)
        6    God is trustworthy (10:36-37)
        7    Link (10:38-9)
V    Accessing The Work (11:1-12:13)
    A   The Means – Faith (11:1-40)
    B   The Meathod – Look to Jesus (12:1-13)

http://www.consider.org/Classes/Hebrews/OutlineShort.htm

http://www.consider.org/Classes/Hebrews/OutlineLong.htm

Hebrews 10:21-26

Wednesday, October 22nd, 2014 by Elgin Hushbeck

A verse by verse study of Hebrews
    D    A Better Result (10:1-18)
        1    The Old Covenant could not save (10:1-4)
        2    Christ established a New Covenant (10:5-10)
        3    An eternal Result (10:11-14)
        4    Confirmed by the Holy Spirit (10:15-18)
    E    E. Closing Exhortation (10:19-39)
        1    Our new status (10:19-21)
        2    Draw near to God (10:22-25)
        3    Keep sinning no sacrifice (10:26-27)

        4    Analogy – Breaking the Laws of Moses (10:28-31)
        5    Confidence in past suffering (10:32-35)
        6    God is trustworthy (10:36-37)
        7    Link (10:38-9)

http://www.consider.org/Classes/Hebrews/OutlineShort.htm

http://www.consider.org/Classes/Hebrews/OutlineLong.htm

Science, Religion, and Naturalism, continued

Monday, March 26th, 2012 by Elgin Hushbeck

Paul L. LaClair’s post is here. His comments are in blue

“Elgin, it’s not default thinking. It’s empirical thinking. It’s responding to what works.”

Yet the vast majority of your reply only further demonstrates the contrary. Since you are leaving the discussion I will simply respond to a few points. If you think I skipped something important just let me know and I will address it.

“That’s right but the difference is that science can take the next step into application.”

There are several key problems here with the word “application.” For one thing there are significant areas of science that have no application, at least not currently. In addition much, if not most of scientific knowledge precedes any application. Thus making application a prerequisite for any knowledge would invalidate at least parts of science.

In addition it is unclear what are the limits this application. What kind of application must there be for knowledge to be consider legitimate? Then there are the areas of knowledge, such as history, which are commonly accepted as legitimate, but for which the concept of application is, at best, unclear. Can we legitimately say that Lincoln was the 16th president of the United States? What would be the application of such knowledge?

The key difference between naturalism and my view is that I focus more on the method of knowledge. Thus applications confirm the usefulness of the method, not just the results. This is an important distinction for it allows me to talk about knowledge in areas such as history, where there is little or no application, but where the methods can still be applied.

“It isn’t just that “God” is unproven, it’s unprovable according to all we know.”

This goes back to my comments at the beginning of our discussion concerning the concept of proof. But in any event, the real point is that “to all we know” really means, “to all the naturalist believes” and is again a classic example of default thinking.

ME: “Yet, I provided evidence, in the form of a rational argument,”

YOU:” Because that’s not evidence. Read your statement again. Where’s the evidence?”

This basically demonstrates my point. That which does not support you, you simply ignore. Whether you choose to accept it or not a rational argument is evidence. Reject this and you reject the core of the scientific method upon which your view depends. Your selective acceptance of reason, i.e., you accept it when it reaches the conclusion you like, is hardly a rational position, but instead just more evidence of the flaws within naturalism.

Concerning your answer to the argument that you requested.

“1. Knowing that cause and effect as we understand them lead to a seemingly inescapable paradox, you posit an answer based on a series of assumptions.”

It is only a paradox for naturalism. There is no paradox at all for my view, and in fact this argument is quite consistent with my view. While they are clearly assumptions, they are the assumptions of naturalism, which is the point of the argument. The only real problem with this argument for the naturalist is that it points to a conclusion that naturalism refuses to accept.

“Maybe there is something about the nature of space-time, and therefore causation that we don’t yet know,”

I already pointed this out in an early note. While true, it is irrelevant to the point of the argument. The point of the argument is that the evidence we currently have points to something naturalism says cannot exist. Your refusal to accept what, in any other context would be an obvious conclusion, clearly demonstrates that naturalism is inconsistent. Naturalism claims to be empirical relying only on the evidence, but then rejects the current evidence in favor of some hypothetical future possibility. At this point the naturalist abandons the scientific evidence in favor of faith and hope. Faith that naturalism is true, and hope that some evidence that avoids this may be found in the future. Again this is fine. Naturalists would certainly not be the first people in history to hold on to their beliefs in spite of the evidence to the contrary, but it does show that your claims to be open to evidence to the contrary are clearly false, and so perhaps you will not be so quick to ridicule those who disagree with you in the future.

“That’s a more likely explanation, since that has been the course of scientific discovery to date.”

Actually the course has been the opposite. For 200 years, naturalist based science has consistently attempted to avoid any concept of a start to the universe, probably because of the implications. From early theories of a steady state universe, to more recent theories that postulated various form of a cycling universe, every attempt so far has had to be discarded as more evidence came in. The course has been opposite of the one you describe. In fact if we just go by the “course of scientific discovery to date” that would be a much better reason to call into question any new theory that the universe did not have a beginning. All previous attempts to make this claim were subsequently overthrown by the evidence, so why shouldn’t any new theory suffer the same fate?

“2. Out of all the possibilities one could imagine, you settle arbitrarily on a conscious creator.”

Once again you show that you cannot squarely face the argument as presented, but must instead change it into something you are more comfortable with. In this case so you can divert the argument onto your beliefs on the origins of religion, beliefs which, btw, cannot be verified. Again the argument says nothing about consciousness one way or the other, and so this attempt at refutation is no more valid than the last time you raised it. In short, you cannot refute an argument that does not mention consciousness, by talking about consciousness. You need to deal with the argument, not some straw man of your own creation.

“We naturalists aren’t in a quandary, as you claim. We merely observe that there are questions we can’t answer yet”

This is not only a statement of hope, it is a statement of denial, as the only way to not be in a “quandary,” or at least think that you are not, is simply to ignore the argument. Yet this is inconsistent with the principles of naturalism as you have stated them. You can ignore the problem the argument reveals, but that does not make it go away, it just demonstrates your claim to simply follow the evidence is false.

“if you do, we naturalists will listen and alter our views based on the new evidence – if that ever happens. Y’all refuse to do the same, which is intellectually dishonest.”

Except that when I demonstrated that the assumptions of naturalism are inconsistent with the best scientific evidence we have, you ignore the evidence and hope things will change in the future. You talk about evidence and reason, but have repeatedly show that you will quickly discard them when they do not support your belief in naturalism. So who is being intellectually dishonest?

“I don’t mean to be rude but what you’re doing is not interesting or productive.”

That is fine, as there really is no place left for the discussion to go. I and others have pointed out a number of fallacies and errors in your claims, which for the most part you have just ignored. To move forward, you would need to actually address these fallacies and errors, providing either explanations for why they are not fallacious or in error, which for many would not be possible; or attempt to restate the arguments so as to remove the fallacies and errors. However, instead of refuting or correcting them, you have basically denied that naturalism can be rationally evaluation. This not only conflicts with your claim on the importance of verification, but make further discussion difficult at best, unless you resort to repetition of previously refuted argument, which you have done.

The only other way to more forward would be for you to face the implications of the argument based on origin I cited, but to do this would be to acknowledge the fatal flaw in naturalism, which you clearly cannot do, for to do this would be to abandon naturalism. Instead you have appealed to hope. This is fine, but it against precludes further discussion because I cannot know what may or may not be discovered in the future, and you have again precluded naturalism from being evaluated. But realize that this is a hope that runs contrary to you claims, and is in fact exactly what you are so critical of others for doing.

But, in any event, I do what to thank you for an interesting discussion.

Science, Religion, and Naturalism, continued

Saturday, January 14th, 2012 by Elgin Hushbeck

Paul L. LaClair’s post is here. His comments are in blue

Paul,

“Elgin, you’re a bright fellow, so if you will select what you think is your best and most devastating argument against my position, I’ll give you a response along the same lines. Feel free to reference your argument by date and time of your post.”

Well the refutation of naturalism rests on several points.  One line of argument is it’s many internal inconsistencies that I and others have pointed out.   Another is the very practical one centered on the numerous errors and fallacies of its defenders, not only here but elsewhere.  At my blog (www.consider.org/blog), for example, I did extensive reviews detailing the errors and fallacies of the Neo-atheist books of Hitchens (www.consider.org/blog/?p=152), Dawkins (www.consider.org/blog/?p=45) and Harris (www.consider.org/News/2007/2.htm).  If the supporters of a position cannot put forth a rational defense of  that position, why should it be accepted?

Still if I had to pick just one I guess it would be the argument based on origins that I laid out early.  This is because; it depends on the framework of naturalism.  For convenience, I will repeat it here and expand a bit.

The current evidence supports that the natural universe as we know it had a beginning and could not have existed forever. If our current evidence is correct, then either, the natural universe came from something, or came from nothing. If it came from something, then this something would be non-natural, and this is evidence of a non-natural explanation that naturalism denies.

Granted the first premise is provisional given the advancement of science, but for some time this has been the scientific position and seems pretty sound. The point here is that for the naturalist to question the validity of this premise would be to question the validity of science; something they cannot do and remain consistent.

As for the two options this is simply an expression of the law of the excluded middle. To question this would be to call the entire foundation of science and thus naturalism into question.

Now the naturalist could just accept that the universe came from nothing, and some do. But this explanation would conflict with the scientific method. It is basically magic.  If “it came from nothing” were to be seen as a legitimate explanation for events, it could explain anything, and there would be no need for science. Naturalists could argue that this was a special case, but that would only be an admission that the rules they use elsewhere do not apply here, i.e., that naturalism does not explain everything.

So that leaves the claim that it came from something.  But if this is true, this would only demonstrate that there was something else beyond the natural world, and that naturalism is not the complete description that naturalists claim.

Again this is a deductive argument, which means that if the premises are true, and naturalism would have to say that they are, and the structure is valid, which it is, then the conclusion must be sound, or in other words, the conclusion is obvious, and it no matter how you go about it, it refutes naturalism.

Thus for me, it is no wonder naturalists refuse to face squarely this argument. They can’t and remain naturalists, at least not in any universal sense.