Comments on: XFiles Friday: Tiptoe through the minefield… http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2010/01/22/xfiles-friday-tiptoe-thru-the-minefield/ The theology of Reality Sun, 11 Sep 2011 22:49:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Korou http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2010/01/22/xfiles-friday-tiptoe-thru-the-minefield/comment-page-1/#comment-20094 Korou Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:40:39 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=1211#comment-20094 "The point I want to make here is that Geisler and Turek, in their book I Don’t Have Enough FAITH to Be an ATHEIST, are telling us that we should believe that the New Testament record is authoritative and infallible because the men who wrote it claim it was authenticated by miracles. That’s not just gullible, it’s a theological minefield, and Geisler and Turek have to step very carefully when advancing this claim. Or rather, they should tread very carefully, but in fact, they don’t seem to show much care at all. To be perfectly honest they rather clomp around." See? THAT'S why we keep reading you! Your essays re a litte bright spot in the week, and I always look forward to them. Keep up the good work, and thanks! “The point I want to make here is that Geisler and Turek, in their book I Don’t Have Enough FAITH to Be an ATHEIST, are telling us that we should believe that the New Testament record is authoritative and infallible because the men who wrote it claim it was authenticated by miracles. That’s not just gullible, it’s a theological minefield, and Geisler and Turek have to step very carefully when advancing this claim.
Or rather, they should tread very carefully, but in fact, they don’t seem to show much care at all. To be perfectly honest they rather clomp around.”

See? THAT’S why we keep reading you!
Your essays re a litte bright spot in the week, and I always look forward to them.
Keep up the good work, and thanks!

]]> By: Jim T. http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2010/01/22/xfiles-friday-tiptoe-thru-the-minefield/comment-page-1/#comment-20019 Jim T. Fri, 22 Jan 2010 21:22:54 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=1211#comment-20019 >> <i>Geisler and Turek know that there’s a contradiction between saying “miracles ravish free will” and “the miracle confirms the message.” But it’s a subconscious knowledge, the constant pricking of cognitive dissonance, a relentless itch too deep to reach or to ignore.</i> Oh, that's quite lovely. Well said. Excellent article. Miracles as confirmation are quite useless once they quickly become hearsay. That was a big thing for me to realize. For me, Thomas Paine's <i>Age of Reason</i> help to unlock all of this. From <a href="http://www.thomaspaine.org/Archives/AOR1.html#17" rel="nofollow">CHAPTER XVII - OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED IN ALL TIME, AND ALMOST UNIVERSALLY, TO DECEIVE THE PEOPLES</a>: <i> Since then appearances are so capable of deceiving, and things not real have a strong resemblance to things that are, nothing can be more inconsistent than to suppose that the Almighty would make use of means, such as are called miracles, that would subject the person who performed them to the suspicion of being an impostor, and the person who related them to be suspected of lying, and the doctrine intended to be supported thereby to be suspected as a fabulous invention. Of all the modes of evidence that ever were invented to obtain belief to any system or opinion to which the name of religion has been given, that of miracle, however successful the imposition may have been, is the most inconsistent. <b>For, in the first place, whenever recourse is had to show, for the purpose of procuring that belief (for a miracle, under any idea of the word, is a show) it implies a lameness or weakness in the doctrine that is preached.</b> And, in the second place, it is degrading the Almighty into the character of a show-man, playing tricks to amuse and make the people stare and wonder. <b>It is also the most equivocal sort of evidence that can be set up; for the belief is not to depend upon the thing called a miracle, but upon the credit of the reporter, who says that he saw it; and, therefore, the thing, were it true, would have no better chance of being believed than if it were a lie.</b> ...... In every point of view in which those things called miracles can be placed and considered, the reality of them is improbable, and their existence unnecessary. They would not, as before observed, answer any useful purpose, even if they were true; for it is more difficult to obtain belief to a miracle, than to a principle evidently moral, without any miracle. Moral principle speaks universally for itself. Miracle could be but a thing of the moment, and seen but by a few; after this it requires a transfer of faith from God to man to believe a miracle upon man's report. <b>Instead, therefore, of admitting the recitals of miracles as evidence of any system of religion being true, they ought to be considered as symptoms of its being fabulous.</b> It is necessary to the full and upright character of truth that it rejects the crutch; and it is consistent with the character of fable to seek the aid that truth rejects. </i> >> Geisler and Turek know that there’s a contradiction between saying “miracles ravish free will” and “the miracle confirms the message.” But it’s a subconscious knowledge, the constant pricking of cognitive dissonance, a relentless itch too deep to reach or to ignore.

Oh, that’s quite lovely. Well said. Excellent article.

Miracles as confirmation are quite useless once they quickly become hearsay. That was a big thing for me to realize.

For me, Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason help to unlock all of this. From CHAPTER XVII – OF THE MEANS EMPLOYED IN ALL TIME, AND ALMOST UNIVERSALLY, TO DECEIVE THE PEOPLES:


Since then appearances are so capable of deceiving, and things not real have a strong resemblance to things that are, nothing can be more inconsistent than to suppose that the Almighty would make use of means, such as are called miracles, that would subject the person who performed them to the suspicion of being an impostor, and the person who related them to be suspected of lying, and the doctrine intended to be supported thereby to be suspected as a fabulous invention.

Of all the modes of evidence that ever were invented to obtain belief to any system or opinion to which the name of religion has been given, that of miracle, however successful the imposition may have been, is the most inconsistent. For, in the first place, whenever recourse is had to show, for the purpose of procuring that belief (for a miracle, under any idea of the word, is a show) it implies a lameness or weakness in the doctrine that is preached. And, in the second place, it is degrading the Almighty into the character of a show-man, playing tricks to amuse and make the people stare and wonder. It is also the most equivocal sort of evidence that can be set up; for the belief is not to depend upon the thing called a miracle, but upon the credit of the reporter, who says that he saw it; and, therefore, the thing, were it true, would have no better chance of being believed than if it were a lie.

……

In every point of view in which those things called miracles can be placed and considered, the reality of them is improbable, and their existence unnecessary. They would not, as before observed, answer any useful purpose, even if they were true; for it is more difficult to obtain belief to a miracle, than to a principle evidently moral, without any miracle. Moral principle speaks universally for itself. Miracle could be but a thing of the moment, and seen but by a few; after this it requires a transfer of faith from God to man to believe a miracle upon man’s report. Instead, therefore, of admitting the recitals of miracles as evidence of any system of religion being true, they ought to be considered as symptoms of its being fabulous. It is necessary to the full and upright character of truth that it rejects the crutch; and it is consistent with the character of fable to seek the aid that truth rejects.

]]> By: David D.G. http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2010/01/22/xfiles-friday-tiptoe-thru-the-minefield/comment-page-1/#comment-20003 David D.G. Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:27:07 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=1211#comment-20003 Sheesh. No wonder they call it "apologetics"; I'd feel pretty apologetic myself if those were the best arguments I had. Exemplary post, DD! ~David D.G. Sheesh. No wonder they call it “apologetics”; I’d feel pretty apologetic myself if those were the best arguments I had.

Exemplary post, DD!

~David D.G.

]]>