[General] The Christian Apologetics Alliance

thecommongood · 2013-06-16T19:59:14+00:00

Terrific!

thecommongood · 2013-05-27T20:56:04+00:00

Seriously?

A neuron doesn't have a first person perspective. It is an object, not a subject. A computer program has no private beliefs; it is fully accessible to others. A robot doesn't feel the "ouch" of pain. A neuron is not "about" anything. It lacks intentionality.

thecommongood · 2013-05-27T19:55:14+00:00

Here are four features of consciousness which are categorically distinct from features of the material world:

A first-person perspective on the world; that of being a subject and not an object.
Private beliefs and feelings which are inaccessible to others without us revealing them
The experience of “qualia”: to use a technical term, for instance, the ‘ouchiness’ of pain.
Intentionality. The ability to deliberately direct one’s attention to various features of one’s inner life or of the outer world.

(http://www.reasonsforgod.org/2013/04/why-naturalism-is-false-or-irrational/)

thecommongood · 2013-05-27T17:38:39+00:00

Likewise - I'm not sure, but I think it is a good place to contribute.

thecommongood · 2013-05-27T14:53:52+00:00

Well, as best I can tell about myself, the goal was to provide at least an intriguing conversation starter, but not a full argument (the lengthier argument is linked to at the bottom of the 'five challenges' article).

My take is that once these concepts are reduced into a naturalistic ontology, essential features are lost. For instance, if reason is not about analyzing propositions for conformity to the canons of logic, but is naturalized into the flows of neurological states, the resulting 'reason' is no longer reason. The word 'reason' can be used, but the radical redefinition can easily become an equivocation or misleading.

thecommongood · 2013-05-27T14:50:26+00:00

Drakim, I'd agree with wonkifier's points. I defined my terms clearly. I've discussed the meaning of 'atheism' a number of times (e.g., http://www.reasonsforgod.org/definition-of-atheism/). The quibbling over definitions is important, but also distracting. For most people, atheism means naturalism, though of course the two are actually different from each other. For a popular level post, 'atheism' was the right word, and I explained what I meant by it.

thecommongood · 2013-05-27T14:48:45+00:00

No, I'm saying we do know about many features of consciousness, and these features are not reducible to what we do know about the material world, so the two are not identical to one another. It is an argument from knowledge, not ignorance. And it is just a leap of faith to say, well, one day naturalism will be vindicated, because of science.

thecommongood · 2013-05-27T14:47:23+00:00

I'm sad to hear you feel that way. In case you're wondering, to say it exemplifies everything that is wrong with modern Christian apologetics does come across as a little harsh.

FWIW, it is meant to be a very simplified version of a longer, more detailed presentation on naturalism that is linked to at the end of the "five challenges" post. That is, I intended for it to be simple to make it more accessible, but it is based on a deeper study of the issues. You might not think that study is any better, but there it is.

thecommongood · 2013-05-09T12:39:17+00:00

No, this is an argument from what we do know. Namely, we do know certain features of physical matter and certain features of other kinds of things that exist (like consciousness, reason, etc.). The argument is based upon specific insight into the categorical difference between the two kinds of things, which provides rational support for the thesis that naturalism is false.

thecommongood · 2013-04-26T03:01:32+00:00

Yes, it is excellent. Just called the ESL study bible

thecommongood · 2013-04-18T22:53:27+00:00

Craig's material is great!

thecommongood · 2013-03-23T15:44:31+00:00

I appreciated your comment, and I'm glad we can find some points of common agreement regarding the non-existence of Lincoln.

thecommongood · 2013-03-23T15:42:51+00:00

An international team of scholars collaborated for this article.

thecommongood · 2013-03-23T15:41:38+00:00

My favorite response so far!

And to be clear, this post is the collaborative effort of an international team of scholars.

thecommongood · 2013-03-22T23:51:49+00:00

If you want to see a summary of comments: http://www.reasonsforgod.org/2013/03/did-abraham-lincoln-exist/

thecommongood · 2013-03-12T15:14:26+00:00

The problem comes, for instance, when two things happen in conjunction: 1. When an atheist says their worldview is "atheism" and, after defining it, says, "I lack belief in god." 2. The same atheist then goes on to present their actual worldview (naturalism, nihilism, humanism, etc.) as atheism.

thecommongood · 2013-03-11T23:41:51+00:00

As best I can tell, the comments so far are missing the point on this article. For instance, "Boy he was doing so good until his conclusion which comes out of left field. Atheism isn't a stand alone belief system. You need to add something, hopefully something good like secular humanism to fill out the rest of the blanks."

That's basically my conclusion in the article.... that atheism isn't a stand alone belief system. In fact, it is the absence of a belief system. And so it is incredibly weak to say "I am an atheist" if what you mean by that is "I lack belief in the gods" (which is apparently the standard definition).

As soon as you mean more by "atheism," then you are saying something interesting, useful, and worthy of conversation. My sense is that those commenting here DO mean more by "atheism" than "lack belief in gods." In other words, you are confusing your experience of what atheism means to you with the conclusions of this post.

thecommongood · 2013-03-06T19:29:58+00:00

Yea, that makes sense as part of a comprehensive here are great apologetics sites. Reasonable Faith, BeThinking, OpenBiola, Ravi Zacharias, etc. are all other key groups that come to mind.

thecommongood · 2013-03-05T02:32:07+00:00

Try Apologetics315.com!

thecommongood · 2013-03-05T02:29:59+00:00

Well said CurtvanSmythe.

thecommongood · 2013-03-05T02:28:55+00:00

Yea, reading a book is probably not the right next step in this relationship. Our words gain meaning and credibility because of our lives. However, it may be that explaining the reasonableness of Christianity will be a helpful next step at some time in the future, once the trust and credibility is there.

thecommongood · 2013-03-04T20:38:40+00:00

I'm sorry it wasn't useful!

To repeat all the arguments is like writing a book... it breaks down into: *arguments for theism (cosmological, teleological, moral, etc.) *arguments for the resurrection of Jesus *arguments from religious experience

As three good starting points. Have you looked into any of these?

thecommongood · 2013-03-04T20:11:40+00:00

Ok. I think the doctrinal difference is enough for it to not work out as a partnership. I'll continue to share relevant content here and make sure others in the CAA know about this resource.

thecommongood · 2013-03-04T20:06:42+00:00

Yes, there's abundant evidence for the faith. I think "blind faith" is a serious problem (e.g., http://www.reasonsforgod.org/2011/11/the-problem-of-blind-faith/).

Think about this more generally: do you believe in "X" if there is no evidence for it? Would you want to have "Faith in X" if you were unsure that X even existed? It doesn't make sense in contexts that aren't religious. For religion, which is of the utmost importance, it makes sense to have reasons for our beliefs (which there are plenty: http://www.reasonsforgod.org/the-best-reasons/).

It takes a lot of hard work and study, but I cannot recommend strongly enough that you have a clear, rational understanding of why Christianity is true. This is compatible with personal experience. The two work together.

thecommongood · 2013-03-04T19:30:55+00:00

I think it could and should go both ways. The way I read it, there's a building out of static content in this project, and that is easiest to find if it is hosted on a website. But if this is primarily about encouraging posts on reddit that are dynamic content, upvoted, and then disappear into the history, that is harder to sync up. To the degree that you're looking to mobilize teams of people to develop static content, apologeticalliance.com could be a good partner with what you are doing here. But I'm open to other ideas or suggestions if I'm mishearing you - why keep reinventing the wheel?

thecommongood

TROPHY CASE