4:24 this reminds me of George Edward More's argument: 1. Here is one hand 2. And here is another 3. There are at least two external objects in the world 4. Therefore an external world exists
He also wrote a poem on the subject, which he called The Apologist's Evening Prayer: From all my lame defeats and oh! much more From all the victories that I seemed to score; From cleverness shot forth on Thy behalf At which, while angels weep, the audience laugh; From all my proofs of Thy divinity, Thou, who wouldst give no sign, deliver me. Thoughts are but coins. Let me not trust, instead Of Thee, their thin-worn image of Thy head. From all my thoughts, even from my thoughts of Thee, O thou fair Silence, fall, and set me free. Lord of the narrow gate and the needle’s eye, Take from me all my trumpery lest I die.
" faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word Of God". having said that , the very Word says that the world around us is a witness, so "they are without excuse".
The bad Steve Irwin joke just showcases how subjective a lot of popular rhetoric is. The fact is that we all marshal up evidence in favor of our pre-existing ideas, and we do it all the time, unconsciously, without realizing it. We're pre-wired that way. A Christian will attribute his surviving a deadly plane crash to the action of God; an atheist will attribute thousands of children dying miserable deaths to the inaction of God. Neither constitutes anything near a "proof." And perhaps that's the weakness of moral arguments for or against God's existence is that they're just very subjective. Some people seem to have a great moral compass and the philosophical question of where morality comes from just isn't important to them; they're fine with having no God to explain morality. In a way, their "inner witness" just compels them to weight moral arguments for God as the ground of objective morality differently than a Christian might weight that argument. Since our inner sense of "you must listen to this; you can't ignore this; this is key!" differs from person to person, and evolution has mainly shaped that to avoid major physical dangers (don't eat poison or waste products; avoid big toothy animals that make loud noises), something that I think is just the most poignant idea ever could easily look like insanity to somebody else. That's not just to throw up our hands in despair and forego all rationality, but to admit that there's something deeper that goes beyond argument.
4:24 this reminds me of George Edward More's argument:
1. Here is one hand
2. And here is another
3. There are at least two external objects in the world
4. Therefore an external world exists
He also wrote a poem on the subject, which he called The Apologist's Evening Prayer:
From all my lame defeats and oh! much more
From all the victories that I seemed to score;
From cleverness shot forth on Thy behalf
At which, while angels weep, the audience laugh;
From all my proofs of Thy divinity,
Thou, who wouldst give no sign, deliver me.
Thoughts are but coins. Let me not trust, instead
Of Thee, their thin-worn image of Thy head.
From all my thoughts, even from my thoughts of Thee,
O thou fair Silence, fall, and set me free.
Lord of the narrow gate and the needle’s eye,
Take from me all my trumpery lest I die.
He was right about that but wrong about female pastors.
" faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word Of God". having said that , the very Word says that the world around us is a witness, so "they are without excuse".
Thanks for this valuable info. I have read many CS Lewis writings but missed out this warning.
Thanks for that.
The bad Steve Irwin joke just showcases how subjective a lot of popular rhetoric is. The fact is that we all marshal up evidence in favor of our pre-existing ideas, and we do it all the time, unconsciously, without realizing it. We're pre-wired that way. A Christian will attribute his surviving a deadly plane crash to the action of God; an atheist will attribute thousands of children dying miserable deaths to the inaction of God. Neither constitutes anything near a "proof." And perhaps that's the weakness of moral arguments for or against God's existence is that they're just very subjective. Some people seem to have a great moral compass and the philosophical question of where morality comes from just isn't important to them; they're fine with having no God to explain morality. In a way, their "inner witness" just compels them to weight moral arguments for God as the ground of objective morality differently than a Christian might weight that argument. Since our inner sense of "you must listen to this; you can't ignore this; this is key!" differs from person to person, and evolution has mainly shaped that to avoid major physical dangers (don't eat poison or waste products; avoid big toothy animals that make loud noises), something that I think is just the most poignant idea ever could easily look like insanity to somebody else. That's not just to throw up our hands in despair and forego all rationality, but to admit that there's something deeper that goes beyond argument.
Very helpful.
Excellent video brother
This one thought i miss... and also, i think defending ones question on the truth of God may lead not on faith but on who & what ones thought is.
Great video Randal