Objective Truth
Is there such a thing?
Ponder this: if you say "no," then you appeal to an objective truth.
Some might try to claim there is no objective truth, but no one actually lives that way. Think about it. We use objective truth at the bank, the hospital, our workplace and everywhere else we live our lives. Why do some claim that there is no objective truth when they view the purpose of the universe?
They might say about your convictions or about mine: "True for you, perhaps, but not true for me."
My question: Is that true for everyone?
posted by Mark Hunsaker on Monday, March 10, 2008
17 Comments:
i would need for you to unpack "ojective truth" for me to give an honest response. if you mean an unbiased, i would say no. i do not believe it is possible that humans can be unbiased (such is one of my biases).
i like the concept of absolutes. you know something like "it is always wrong to murder children"; but this can really cause someone problems when they read the christian-scriptures. i guess they will have to appeal to somekind of transcendant "truth"; something like "god can do no wrong". then they can be ok with the portrayal of god murdering children.
there are times in my life mark that i lean on something like absolutes, but there are also times for that which is useful or situational. there is a time to run a red light, there is a time for a doctor to try an experiemental technique, etc.
i do think "useful truths" has SOME validity. i look at life paradigms like life-swings (think golf). some swing-tips will destroy your swing. we are all so unique. not everyone's golf game will benefit from trying to imitade tiger woods. some peoples hands are to big to use his inter-locking grip.
i would like to explore this with you futher.
peace to you and yours,
rob
Rob,
Great question. I'm not talking about biased or unbiased truth. I agree with you that we all have bias. I completely agree with you.
I would define an objective truth this way: Something that is true regardless of what we may think about it.
An example:
The earth is a sphere. There are still people that think this is not true. But, it is objectively true. That is, it is true even if someone thinks it is not.
Another example:
Nazi Germany's systematic torture and murder of millions of people during the Holocaust. Apparently some of the Nazis didn't think this was wrong. It is wrong even if they don't think it was.
It was objectively wrong.
I think the confusion about objective truth comes in the manner that we experience life subjectively. Our urge (and I believe this to be a sinful urge) is to think the only things that are important is in how we view them from our vantage point.
I'm routinely guilty of this problem.
The reason I bring up Objective Truth is to grapple with the challenge by many in our culture that there is no such thing. The difficulty with that, however, is that to make such a claim is to appeal to objective truth.
Any time we think something is true for everyone, regardless of what they may think about it, we are making claims about objective truths.
I'm convinced that all of us make claims about objective truths, at one point or another.
Thanks,
Mark
"The reason I bring up Objective Truth is to grapple with the challenge by many in our culture that there is no such thing. The difficulty with that, however, is that to make such a claim is to appeal to objective truth."
Mark, seriously. I know I'm commenting on here as a guest to your site and I have no right to be rude...but please, that argument is really old and invalid.
(Like a lot of the "evidence" that creationists often bring up to attack evolution, that consistently fail because they ignore the fact that so much of it has been disproved and dismissed and decades ago. Like the transitional fossils argument, specifically whale transitions. Or irreducible complexity and blood clotting. Countless arguments that keep getting brought out again and again, ignoring the fact that they have been soundly dealt with.)
The whole "sawing off the limb you're sitting on" canard (which I'm glad to see you haven't used...yet), simply does not apply.
When someone states that there "are no objective truths" they are referring to a SET of issues that are SEPARATE from the semantic issue of statements of logic.
That is, when I state "there are no objective truths" I am talking about a group of issues that involve morality, value judgment, ideology, and human behavior. This excludes the realm of objective facts, and the realm of semantic logics. Thus, the statement "there are no objective truths" is a branch on a different tree from from the one I'm sawing on.
While there are some nutjobs who deny 2+2=4 and the earth is round, it's safe to say most people understand certain objective FACTS:
mathematics (e.g.: 2+2=4).
chemistry (e.g.: 1 cm3 of pure H2O boils in 1 atmosphere at 100 degrees C).
physics (e.g.: an object at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by an outside force).
astrophysics (e.g.: the speed of light, c, is a universal constant that cannot be exceeded by basic matter).
etc.
(Although, a belief in creationism is to say all and every fact of all sciences in all fields is wrong, since the same method of research and analysis of data that makes up evolution is the same method that allows us to know all scientific facts--like air speed velocities in the building of planes and flame retardant materials in clothing....)
Those are objective FACTS. "Truth" is a relative term that is served by ideology, a construct of HUMAN MINDS and not subject to the concept of objective facts.
We believe certain "truths" that we consider facts which people under completely different ideologies wouldn't understand. For example, people in Medieval Europe believed certain universal truths--such as the royalty were ordained by God to rule, and a person's place in the world is ordained by God. There literally is no changing your class. It's impossible. The way things were were literally the way they'd always been and always will be. If you tried to explain the concept of capitalism to a feudal subject, they'd laugh at you and tell you that's an impossible concept, and probably sinful. These were absolute truths.
The French Revolution proved from then on that ideologies were forever relative--and human beliefs are creations of ideologies.
As evolved animals, we do have some vaguely universal beliefs, such as the wrongness of murder. That's a biological imperative to avoid murder. And one of the many any pieces of evidence that this is an evolved biological imperative is shown in the study that involved this situation:
In short: a train is coming down a track at 5 people who don't see and hear it coming. It will kill them. There's one man on another track that the train can be switched to just in time. You're next to the switch. Do you pull it?
Most people in the study do so, with regret. The one life sacrificed is better than 5. But then, same situation, but one track and instead of a switch, you're standing next to a very large man you know will stall the train before it kills the 5 down the track. Do you push the man?
Most people refuse to, even though it's the same result! Why? Our primate brain understands the concept of direct action causing death. But our developed frontal cortex allows us to mitigate this imperative thanks to the distancing of direct action with technology--a concept the mind doesn't innately grasp.
So, most cultures have moral and legal codes against murder. And theft, and other behavior that humans in general find disruptive to civil order. Because we are a social primate that has evolved to thrive by living in cooperative social groups. We innately understand that actions which disrupt social order harms us as a group--ergo, we as a species appear to have some "universal truths" regarding certain actions and behavior.
But this is a biological fact that MOST of the species will do what benefits self, kin, and social group; and avoid what harms self, kin, and social group.
This is different than an ideological "truth."
...which mitigates these facts. As seen in poli-sci ideologies (e.g.: capitalism, communism, socialism, fascism, etc.) and religions. It's OK for God to kill innocent children (Exodus) or allow it to happen to serve his needs (both Harods) or wipe out the entire world (including unlucky animals, children, and the unborn) as if he didn't see ahead at the necessity to do so (Noah's flood). But even though he's described to be the perfect example of mercy, love, and morality who we're supposed to emulate--we can't do the same thing.
...unless you're told to or it's condoned by a god. e.g.: the scorched earth campaign of the Hebrews which included mass murder and genocide, and kidnapping virgins. Killing your children if they disobey you too much. Killing rape victims. Killing those who farm incorrectly. etc etc ad nauseum.
Religion (and poli-sci ideologies) are so filled with relative morality it's literally quite absurd. But what makes it worse is when people who follow these ideologies don't acknowledge it, and are so absorbed by cognitive dissonance they try to rationalize and explain what to the rest of the world are arch examples of blatant relative morality.
In closing:
objective facts, human values, and semantic logic, are altogether different trees with sawable branches.
Mechphisto,
You make this objective truth claim:
"Religion (and poli-sci ideologies) are so filled with relative morality it's literally quite absurd. But what makes it worse is when people who follow these ideologies don't acknowledge it, and are so absorbed by cognitive dissonance they try to rationalize and explain what to the rest of the world are arch examples of blatant relative morality."
My question is a simple one: Is what you claim here true?
Please note: I'm not asking if you believe it to be true, I'm asking if it is objectively true.
In other words, you claim this is true and I disagree with you.
We can't both be right. Can we?
Blessings,
Mark
"We can't both be right. Can we?"
Yes and no.
(How's that for relative?)
Most biological humans "feel" innately that murder is wrong.
That's not a "universal truth" but a biological fact.
(Note the weasel-words "most" and "feel".)
This translates to an understandable ideological component, in most ideologies, against murder.
So you, as a follower of an ideology, would be "right" in saying murder is "wrong." It's biologically harmful, and since there are social preventions against it, it's also socially "wrong."
So, you are technically right to say murder is wrong on two levels.
I am also right to say that at least half of that belief is ideological. This doesn't negate the "wrongness" of murder! On either of the levels. I'm simply stating that it's not an "objective fact" beyond the slippery biological component.
You seem to refuse to accept there is a difference between objective fact and human-based ideological "truths." They can sometimes share the stage, as above, and sometimes be mutually exclusive and conflicting.
As a Christian, you have no choice but to look at the book your religion is based on and see the multitude of examples of where murder by God is venerated, murder by humans is commanded by God, murder by humans is condoned by God, and where murder by humans is not admonished by God. And rationally, you must see that in your religion's ideology, murder is quite relative. Whether the reason to commit murder is situational, based on cultural Laws, or commanded by a supernatural being--it's "wrongness" is relative.
If you can't do that, which forgive me, I suspect you can't, your ideological delusion is quite strong.
Mechphisto,
Let me try something different:
It seems that for something to be declared a "FACT" (a term you keep appealing to) you think that fact must be empirically verified.
True? (I'm guessing you would agree.)
So you would be saying, in effect, FACTS are things that can be observed, measured, predicted, and all the things we would do in exercising the scientific method. Yes?
For something to be called a FACT, it must be empirically verified.
Do you agree with this statement?
Yes, I suppose that's fair to say. Empirically verified, reproduceable, and able to accurately predict results.
Which is why the examples of physics, chemistry, math, are examples of facts.
And why I described the biological imperative against murdering one's own species as a "slippery" fact. It's a fact that MOST members of a species have this imperative.
The semi-universal EXISTENCE of this imperative is a fact, but that does not make the concept "murder = wrong" a fact.
We humans convert the imperative into a relativistic ideological element.
We turn it into a "truth".
Which is fine by me. But that's the difference between a fact and a truth. Objective natural condition, and a human ideological interpretation.
"Truth," an added example, and slightly tangential, but I surreptitiously just now heard it:
Former devout evangelical Christian minister, Dan Barker, and now co-host of Freethought Radio for the Freedom From Religion Foundation, recently discussed with guest Richard Dawkins how when he was a believer, he literally had a two-way relationship with God. Reciprocal conversations, times when he literally knew God was not just speaking to him but telling him to take certain actions. And there are millions of believers just like he was...
Dan: "And when you talk to these people, you can't just TALK them out of...you can't SHAKE them out of what they KNOW to be true in their minds because it's so REAL to them."
Dawkins: (paraphrased) "But you can point out that the faithful in one country believe that voice is the Virgin Mary. In another it's Allah. It's by luck and chance that you are born in a culture where your imaginary voice is the Christian God."...
Dan: "I thought that WE were specially chosen and we had the TRUE faith, and all those OTHER people were the ones deluded."
(http://ffrf.org/radio/podcast/archives/2008.php)
Sound familiar? It sure does to me and my former belief.
Mecphisto,
Okay.
Now, can this statment be empirically verified:
For something to be called a FACT, it must be empirically verified.
My friend, that statement (to use your own terms) is an ideological truth claim. And, it is the truth you hang your life upon.
And...
You claim it is objectively true even though you cannot empirically verify it.
Empirically Verified,
Mark
*sigh* (Hangs head in exasperation.)
You don't get it.
You're creating recursive logic wells that don't exist.
Theador Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Jacques Lacan, Levi-Strauss (not the jean maker), Saussure, countless philosophers and logicians and linguists have discussed the epistemology of "truth" and "facts" for decades and basically every philosopher who's not a theologian seems to all understand the basic separation between ontological truths and the logical semantics, the linguistic nature of logic, needed to describe and define anything from ideology to objective facts.
Whether it's true or not is beside the point, but the statement "There is no absolutes" exists on three levels: the ontological, the epistemological, and the semantic. The described things, the signified, can still be true without affecting the signifier, the linguistic utterance.
OK, last try:
To state "something must be empirically verified in order to be a fact" is a linguistically based utterance of an objective process--it is NOT ideological. The interpretation of the something, the interpretation of the process, and even the words used to describe the something and the process, may be ideological, however.
Let me put it another way.
2+2=4 is empirical. You will have 4 of something if you have 2 sets of 2 of it.
Verifying this to be true is in itself not ideological--it is a process.
The way I may go about doing so may be ideological. And I may have an ideological agenda for doing so. And the results I come up with may be used for ideological purposes.
Now, as I try to keep this on task, I'm finding it hard to talk to your point.
SO let's reset back to basics:
1. There are empirical facts.
2. To state "there are empirical facts" is a semiotic construction which exists outside the nature of facts.
3. There are human-mind creations of "truths" which we interpret as "facts" but which are relative and may sometimes coincide with empirical facts and sometimes be in conflict, and sometimes have no relationship whatsoever with facts.
Now, what exactly is the problem with this then?
Because if your point is "You can't claim there's no objective truths without stating and objective truth," you still don't get it.
a. I nor anyone rational is saying there are no objective truths (so long as you're talking about natural facts,)
b. Objective facts are separate from issues of value, interpretation, morality, ideology, religion, philosophy even.
It is entirely possible to live in a world (in fact we do) in which you can say 2+2=4 for a fact and always will, and some concepts of "morality" are fluid and relative and have little to no basis in objectivity.
I think that gets to your point.
And all you have to do is look at the history of your own religion to bear this out--which you seem to avoid doing at all costs.
Mecphsito,
It is not a "linguistic utterance."
It is a standard by which you are juging truth.
If you deny this, then you and I should not converse further, becuase our conversation is currently nothing more than two cans of soda fizzing at one another.
With respect,
Mark
Yeah, I "deny" this.
"you and I should not converse further"
I conclusion I drew long ago, and foolishly broke recently.
*sigh*
Hope springs eternal I guess.
mark: thanks for fielding my question. i think we can talk about absolutes, but i think it is all up for conversation. i think we are talking about such matters it is time for us to lean on a proper-humility.
do you have some suggestions regarding some things that you think are absolutes?
Rob,
You'll notice I have avoided the term absolute. I've grown to understand this as a misunderstood term. I prefer the word "objective" because it helps us focus on the fact that when something is objectively true, its truth is not dependent upon our vantage point.
An example: I think that Jesus of Nazareth bodily rose from the dead on April 5, 33 AD.
Now, when I begin with that belief, I do so subjectively. From my vantage point, it is true.
However, notice that my subjective belief is based upon an objective claim. That is to say, on April 5, 33 AD Jesus either DID rise from the dead or he DIDN'T.
There is an objective truth which is incredibly important in either confirming or denying my subjective belief.
There are those who will say to me: "Mark it is just a matter of faith." I respectively disagree. If you produced the bones of Jesus (or some other convincing evidence like this) I would cease to be a Christian.
The objective truth of the Resurrection is just that: True or False.
How we go about determining what actually happened on April 5, 33 AD should be conducted in an objective manner.
I believe Jesus rose from the dead. My conclusion is subjective.
My belief is grounded on the objective evidence. This does not make my belief objective. But it does mean that if I'm right, my conclusion is grounded in objective truth.
With this I can have proper-confidence and active-trust.
Blessings,
Mark
mark: ok - objective; not absolute - i can work with that. i guess i am presently just employing the term reality. is it a reality that jesus rose from the dead? many people believe he did, but is the resurrection of jesus an authentic reality? did it actually happen or is it just an addition to the story of this man that some presented as the promised jewish messiah?
i doubt that at this point evidence could be presented that would convince you to abandon your christian faith. how in the world could anyone in a convincing manner present bones that would clearly be the bones of jesus of nazareth? dna? do we have the dna of jesus on file somewhere?
i don't think you can authentically claim that your faith in the resurrection of jesus is grounded in objective evidence? what evidence? an empty tomb? people willing to die for their profession of faith? i don't think such qualifies for objective evidence - does it?
interesting stuff mark.
peace to your and yours,
rob
Rob,
I like your choice of the word reality. I agree that it is an apt word for describing these things.
My purpose for gravitating toward the word "objecive" is to place emphasis on the fact that something can be true (or false) even if we don't think that or even if we don't experience it.
But in the end, reality is indeed a good word because our understanding either corresponds to reality or it does not.
You then pose a really good question about the Resurrection. You ask if the evidence for the Resurrection which I utilized in my investigation (several of which you list here) can classify as objective evidence.
This is a really great question. In fact, it is one I have struggled with.
To be fair, I think we cannot answer this with a resounding "YES" out of the gate, but again to be fair, should we answer in the negative with a wave of our hands?
I think we need to study this. In my study, I looked at how people conclude something is objective evidence when they are looking at alleged historical evidence. Without a doubt, you'll discover that what they always end up doing is take the pieces of the puzzle they have and try to come up with the "best explanation" of the facts.
When we look at the Resurrection, we find these objective facts, which scholars who study the archeology and literary history agree upon (even those who reject the Resurrection agree with these facts):
1. Jesus died by crucifixion
2. Jesus' disciples believed that a physically risen Jesus appeared to them.
3. Saul of Tarsus suddenly changed from a persecutor of Christians to their most prominent apostle.
4. James, the brother of Jesus, who was a skeptic, became a supporter.
5. The tomb was empty.
There are lots of posible explanations for these facts. The question is: Which one is the most plausable?
Why would Paul, Peter, James and John promote a physcially resurrected Jesus, when doing so meant certain prosecution and death? Why not just say it was a spiritual resurrection and live happily ever after? If they invented all of this, why would they do so unto their deaths?
If you were the San Hedrin, wouldn't you have a distinct interest in producing the body?
Paul wrote 1 Corinthians in the early to mid 50's. He appealed to people (in Chapter 15) to go check his story with those who were eye witnesses. Those promoting legend in antiquity simply do not do this.
Why did the writers of these texts include embarassing details about the events, such as women discovering the empty tomb, Peter denying Christ, and having a Jewish Rabbi publicly defiled when no such notion was native to Judaism.
Now, you and others may look at all of this and say "Naahhhhhhh."
But I don't see how someone can just wave his or her hand and say this isn't objective.
Our conclusions about these facts are entirely subjective. We have to do with them what we will. We have to decide what the best explanation of these facts is.
But the facts are all objective facts. They either happened or they didn't. And, we've got the entire published community of proponents and opponents alike agreeing on the five facts I've listed.
Make no mistake, in the end, I DO think that faith is required to trust Jesus and His Word. And, I think this is a gift of the Holy Spirit when we trust and believe.
But that belief is not in anyway a summary rejection of objective reality. Instead, it is a reasonable and sound conclusion that you may or may not agree with.
And that is why my next post will be about how Objective Truth probably only has real meaning to us when it is discussed in the context of an authentic relationship between people who together are struggling and seeking truth in this very messy world.
Great discussion Rob!
Thanks,
Mark
I'm sorry, but this has to be addressed in the name of fairness:
"When we look at the Resurrection, we find these objective facts, which scholars who study the archeology and literary history agree upon (even those who reject the Resurrection agree with these facts):
1. Jesus died by crucifixion
2. Jesus' disciples believed that a physically risen Jesus appeared to them.
3. Saul of Tarsus suddenly changed from a persecutor of Christians to their most prominent apostle.
4. James, the brother of Jesus, who was a skeptic, became a supporter.
5. The tomb was empty."
First of all, these aren't necessarily facts. They may be true, but there's not enough supporting evidence for one to be able to say they're facts with any reasonable certainty.
1. There's no contemporary evidence of the crucifixion. That is to say, there are no documents written AT THE TIME nor archaeological evidence which proves the Jesus of the Gospels was executed.
This doesn't DISprove he was crucified, any more than you can DISprove the existence of god or blue kangaroos. But it casts a great deal of doubt.
2. Appeared to them...accounted only in the Gospels/Acts/Epistles found in the religious texts. More on this later.
3. Also evidenced only in the religious texts. More in a bit.
4. I have no information to support or refute this. I will conjecture this is also information found only in the religious texts.
5. There's no good archaeological proof of a tomb and no supporting contemporary evidence of the tomb.
Again, not proof against, just makes it suspect.
When I say good archaeological proof, I'm talking about verified and peer reviewed and accepted proof. There's this and that archaeologists who has made claims. (How many times have we heard Noah's Ark had been found? Or evidence of the Ark of the Covenant? What about that whole Jame's ossiary, and the supposed tomb of Jesus' family? There are lots of claims, but nothing (yet) peer examined, reviewed, and widely accepted by the archaeological community.)
All the "evidence" of any of the events described in the Bible are found, in the Bible (or apocryphal religious documents.) But even here we're not dealing with contemporary evidence, which is vital when trying to establish validity of a historical event. The earliest religious document was written by Paul many years after the events, and here's what we know about his writings:
a. Most were not written by him but at best were written by a student, assistant, or close follower of his.
b. There was a cottage industry of epistle writing at the time, with attributions made to Paul.
c. If real, it's biographical which makes suspect unless collaborated. (Bill Clinton writes in his biography that he's an upstanding guy; do you believe him out of hand?)
d. The epistles mention virtually nothing regarding "events" documented in the Gospels involving Jesus' life as a living, breathing person. Not proof of anything, but adds to the suspect nature of the events of Jesus' life.
The first Gospel was written decades after Jesus' death, and by someone who wasn't a witness to the events.
What do we know about the Gospel of Mark?
a. It has the literary hallmarks of fiction writing, specifically Jewish midrash (sp).
b. Is not contemporary to the events.
c. Has entire sections lifted out of the Septuagint and attributed to the words or deeds of Jesus. In some places, word for word including errors in the Greek that are not found in the original Hebrew.
What do we know about the other Gospels?
a. Much of later Gospels copy word for word from Mark.
b. There were many, many gospels floating around those couple hundred years before orthodoxy put the kibosh on religious writings not "authorized" by the growing church establishment.
c. They contain factual contradictions and differences from each other (far beyond being explained away by "different points of view".)
d. Many added elements since Mark, and not from Jewish scripture, come from regional mythology. (e.g.: virgin birth, visitation by kings/magi, etc.)
What else do we know? All of these writings were done so by people who are believers. They have a reason to spread a story about their religious object of worship.
Contrast this with the fact that the area of Palestine, Jerusalem, etc. had a LOT of scholars and historians writing about the events of the day. Note that none of them accounted any tales of Harod ordering the deaths of 1st born, or messiah-wanna-bes with hordes of followers, or followers of a man named Jesus, or claims of miracle performing, etc.
Looking at the issue objectively, we have these elements:
1. No contemporary support for NT events.
2. No or unverified archaeological evidence.
3. The earliest writings were long after the events and written by religious believers.
4. Earliest validated non-religious writings were not about Jesus, but about his later followers.
(You bring up "embarrassing elements to the story," and question why they'd be included if not true? Exactly that reason! You don't think if someone wanted a hard to believe story to be taken seriously, they wouldn't include elements that would add verisimilitude?
But also, Mark's story, one of the many literary elements (versus historical) is his use of opposites and reversal of expectations as a narrative component.)
What's the simplest conclusion so far?
Two examples of the way a story, even based in fact, can quickly take on a life of its own in myth:
Did you know the "Roswell incident," which happened in 1948, had two non-military documents result from it that same month it happened: a newspaper article claiming UFO, and a second way retracting that story after info was gathered. After that, NOTHING was written in the media about it until 1979! It was a non-issue for 30 years!
Until the National Enquirer reprinted the first, UFO claiming article. Then, UFO believers swarmed to the story.
Including one UFO obsessed believer who found a man who served in the Army at the time, and helped him remember details...all the details we've come to accept as evidence of conspiracy: little coffins, missing nurses who knew too much, a controlling red haired colonel, big-headed strangers seen walking on base, etc. All these details came from one man, decades after the event...and each one has since been explained and found results of faulty memory.
And still, the myth persists.
Elvis. We know he lived, sung, died. But look how in the few short years after his dead, the cult of Elvis that has erupted complete with stories of him still being alive, was an agent/spy for the government, death was a coverup, etc. And we are arguably in a FAR less superstitious and fact-based society than they were in the Bronze Age.
What can we claim as "objective facts" about Roswell and Elvis? Who do you ask that question to?
Obviously, there were aliens or their weren't Elvis is alive or he's dead.
The question is: how do the people who believe there were aliens get to that belief, and hang onto it despite all the contrary evidence?
One can also say: Mohammad lived and ascended into Heaven, or he didn't. Vishnu created the earth or didn't.
Why aren't you so certain to they didn't?
--Liam, who can't leave well enough alone.
Liam,
I offer you grace and love. I do not wish to argue with you. You and I have covered these topics many times and I have responded to many of your questions.
I think we could both rightly conclude that arguments where we talk past one another will serve no good purpose.
For further study, I would refer you to the works of Gary Habermas' The Historical Jesus and William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith. These two scholarly works will provide you with peer-reviewed studies complete bibliographies so you can do a full in depth study if you are interested. Habermas, a good friend of former Atheist Anthony Flew, also does a good job of interviewing scholars who hold opposing viewpoints. Both of these gentlemen have the respect of their collegues.
I would also highly recommend you to Craig's site, www.reasonablefaith.org where Dr. Craig and others have provided both popular and scholarly articles so that you can find quick answers online. Registration is free, so I encourage you to go there.
I really enjoy Dr. Craig's podcasts as well. Each one takes a particular challenge (many of which you have raised here) and deals with them one by one.
As I stated in my post "Hello Old Friends," I'm moving in a different direction with this blog. I'm going to try to avoid "proclamation" posts from now on and just share my journey.
I've come to realize that this forum limits useful exchange on these difficult issues. I'm convinced that truth will only have value for each of us if we are operating in the context of a healthy relationship. And that is something you and I have lost in our banter.
My offer to you (and all visitors here) stands, however, that if we could get together and talk and discuss each topic one at a time, as friends where we can look one another in the eye and struggle through the topics together...where our spirits might be less misunderstood...now that is something that would be useful. My e-mail address is posted in the menu here.
Until that day comes, know that my prayers continue to be with you and your family on a daily basis.
Respectfully,
Mark
Post a Comment
<< Home