XPost: alt.atheism, uk.politics.misc   
   From: abelard3@abelard.org   
      
   On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 13:57:22 -0500, Brian E. Clark   
    wrote:   
      
   >In article <221ep45r3m4u24am30ijl3920dpsoec27u@4ax.com>,   
   >calee@optonline.net says...   
   >   
   >> > Well their arguments 'supporting' the existence of God   
   >> > seem totally circular, and often irrational, to me.   
   >>   
   >> They're rationalisations for what they believe, in terms   
   >> of what else they already believe.   
   >>   
   >> Not arguments.   
   >   
   >The many sophists aside, there certainly are Christian   
   >intellectuals who are sincere in their attempts to provide   
   >a rational basis for belief. The problem lies not in their   
   >earnestness, nor even in the strength or weakness of the   
   >their arguments.   
   >   
   >The problem lies with Christianity itself. Christian belief   
   >has always been characterized by an act of faith, not an   
   >exercise of reason. Most denominations still stress   
   >reliance on faith: salvation is achieved through faith,   
   >people come to God in the first place by "seeing through   
   >the eyes of faith," an individual is justified through   
   >faith, and so forth.   
   >   
   >Reason has never been central, nor even necessary, to   
   >Christian belief. And for that reason the activities of the   
   >Christian rationalists, even the greatest of them, have   
   >often seemed to me (when I'm feeling particularly cynical)   
   >little more than playful spots of color dabbed onto an   
   >existing stone building: something designed to make the   
   >place look prettier to strangers, but ultimately irrelevant   
   >to the operation and endurance of the edifice.   
   >   
   >Certainly you'll not find many Christian theologians   
   >agreeing that a person is justified in rejecting   
   >Christianity, should their explanations be found   
   >wanting.   
      
   your comments are confused and self-contradictory...   
   there are elements of christianist theology that have laboured   
        valiantly to 'prove' christianism by 'reason'   
      
   in a confused manner aristotlean logic is regarded by many   
       such labourers as 'reason'...   
   there are for example acres of such attempt in aquinas....   
      
   it is not uncommon for theologians to claim reason is a high road   
        to christianism   
   the convert, chesterton in more modern times strove mightily   
       to claim the difference between (his version) of christianism   
       was rooted in reason....   
      
   --   
   web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics   
    energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past   
   ----------------------------------------------------------------   
   ---------------   
     all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry   
     the triumph of evil is that      []           a big stick.   
     good people do nothing     []   trust actions not words   
                       only when it's funny -- roger rabbit   
   ----------------------------------------------------------------   
   ---------------   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)