Modal Logic

[ppar3566]

I wonder whether materialism and Christianity are so directly opposed. I mean at the end of the day we all have to admit that God does not by pass the material to reveal himself to us. Rather, we perceive God as a function of the material, our thoughts, our logic, our experience are all perceived and stored as a function of neural processes which are by there nature material. Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think materialism is so much a rejection of everything not directly perceived but rather a rejection of dualism, that the spiritual and the physical are some how separate - and thus we can not experience God only Know him, where this knowing occurs on a different plain of existence. I dont really blame people for rejecting dualism, after all this is what lead to gnosticism, which suggested that spiritual life is fundementally different from physical life and thus if one was sweet in the spiritual world one could do what one liked in the physical (Check out Galatians for for an overview of why we as Christians should think that is wrong).

I know this sounds like a contradiction to my rant on posivitism before, but it is not. I do believe that God, while existing outside the material operates in the material, and allows us to know him only via material processes. i.e. everything, including the experience of God is perceived and stored via physical processes. what i do not believe however, is that absolute truth (truth without distortion) can be perceived no matter how far we advance. What this means is that we are all on equal footing in that we can never be absolute that what we experience and perceive is true and free of distortion. Rather things can only be proved to be true for all intense and purposes. We are all in the business of interpretation and thus i don't believe that God only reveals himself to those who believe (or else how would anybody go from a non-Christian to a Christian) but I do believe that there is differences in the levels and type of those experiences and the way in which we interpret them.

What I suppose i am saying is that one cannot only rely on experience and emotion to appeal to others but must also use logic. However, logic is a necessary but not sufficient basis for faith.

 

[Avesther]

The book:

Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview By James Porter Moreland, William Lane Craig

might help you with this one.

 

[cc.slim]

You are right, one can not rely on experience and emotion without adding logic in witness and the use of logic is to obtain the setting to be addressed. I also add the fact that God reaches the spirit to which is far from material, for he says we are longer what we were, for he says we are more now than when he has made us, so in essence we, if so to be, are a part of a body of him then our lord sees not material, he sees spirit.

 

[ppar3566]

The book:

Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview By James Porter Moreland, William Lane Craig

might help you with this one.

Thanks, I am currently doing a little overview of philosophy myself via Squashed Philosophers (and am in the middle of human all to human, and Foucault) as i like my first port of call to always be the original source rather than what people have said about xyz philosophy. But once I have finished that I might have a look.

You are right, one can not rely on experience and emotion without adding logic in witness and the use of logic is to obtain the setting to be addressed. I also add the fact that God reaches the spirit to which is far from material, for he says we are longer what we were, for he says we are more now than when he has made us, so in essence we, if so to be, are a part of a body of him then our lord sees not material, he sees spirit.

Yes but I tend to kind of operate by leaving the metaphysical up to God and focusing my evangelism energies on the material. I figure the metaphysical is too complex and since I experience God in the material and as he chooses to communicate with me in that setting it is good enough for me.

Squashed Philosopher site for those interested http://www.btinternet.com/~glynhughes/squashed/index.htm

 

[Avesther]

On this topic, and maybe a little off, here in Calgary, an atheist society has started running ad's on busses that reads:

"There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

The first thing that came across my mind was: they are assuming that because I (or others like myself) have a faith and belief in God, that I'm not enjoying my life. Which is so untrue. And all this week, the local talk radio show has been talking about this and "religion" vs "non religion" and really was getting to me. And then I thought, I'm really getting worked up.

Then I remembered this thread and I came back to it and read it through and some really good thoughts were brought up. So I decided to go see what the philosophers had to say about it and that book came up (the one I mentioned). And so I did a two hour read of it. The fast enough to get the jist and not enough time spent on it to truly understand it.

One thing came up, and I saw it in this thread in one way or the other, is metaphysical vs epistemic logic. And then it made perfect sense. If I were to come up with a counter ad, it would read:

"There is a God. God is in control so you can relax and enjoy life."

I realized that the atheist could not truly ever relax and enjoy life because they don't know if there is or is not a God. They can't figure that out enough to make an epistemic statement about it, they could only come up with a metaphysical statement. There is probably is no God is a weak metaphysical statement because for all they know, there probably is a God. You can rewrite their statement to this:

"There is probably a God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

and it would mean the exact same thing, and it means nothing, there is no new information or knowledge, nothing to even be able to make a decision.

So if they can't figure out their own core belief's how can they ever know how to relax or what relaxing is or if they are truly enjoying life. Seriously, not like this economy is enjoyable right now by any means.

So learning about all this caused me to immediatly relax. My epistemic statement (a statement with certainty) is good enough for me. It may not be good enough for the atheists who run these adds, but my relaxation and enjoyment of life is not predicated on them at all.

I wish now I knew then what I come to know now so I could call in to the talk show and let them know about their epic fail. But then, I like revelling in my knowledge that I know that they have failed and not letting them know it.

Maybe this helps you, maybe it doesn't. But this thread helped me.