{shrug} Could have been written by anyone I guess. I've seen silly (indeed sillier) things written by all three categories you mentioned, B. {s}
I think there's a difference (incidentally) between identifying God (by conclusion, even if only abductively) as a precondition for knowledge; and formally presuming God's existence as a precondition for knowledge (which seems to me to be utterly false to the reality of thinking). Theological Presups tend to conflate the two notions, for various reasons; but if they only proceed abductively they can do okay with what I call a system-check duel. Their main problem is that they aren't usually content to proceed abductively, and keep trying to make an unassailable conclusion out of treating the worldview-set as a hypothesis. _That's_ when things get squirrely, and even contemptable (in my experience, and opinion.)
I see little value in a discussion confined to two people
ReplyDeleteThis is the silliest things I've read in a while.
Given that sentence would you predict it was written by:
a) an evangelical christian
b) some guy on the street you were talking to
c) an atheist
{shrug} Could have been written by anyone I guess. I've seen silly (indeed sillier) things written by all three categories you mentioned, B. {s}
ReplyDeleteI think there's a difference (incidentally) between identifying God (by conclusion, even if only abductively) as a precondition for knowledge; and formally presuming God's existence as a precondition for knowledge (which seems to me to be utterly false to the reality of thinking). Theological Presups tend to conflate the two notions, for various reasons; but if they only proceed abductively they can do okay with what I call a system-check duel. Their main problem is that they aren't usually content to proceed abductively, and keep trying to make an unassailable conclusion out of treating the worldview-set as a hypothesis. _That's_ when things get squirrely, and even contemptable (in my experience, and opinion.)
JRP