Faith and Reason (henceforth FAR) is the final volume in Richard Swinburne’s trilogy on the philosophy of religion. In The Coherence of Theism Swinburne examined the claims of theism and came to the provisional conclusions that (a) theism was not demonstrably incoherent and (b) a more feasible but indirect way of arguing for the coherence of theism was to provide grounds for thinking theism was true. So in The Existence of God Swinburne examined the arguments for and against the existence of God and concluded that the preponderance of evidence indicated God exists. In FAR Swinburne is concerned with the relevance of such judgments of probability (i.e., ‘God exists’) to religious faith.
Showing posts with label reason. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reason. Show all posts
Saturday, July 20, 2013
Book Review: Faith and Reason by Richard Swinburne
Topics:
apologetics
,
Book Reviews
,
Faith
,
Philosophy of Religion
,
reason
,
Richard Swinburne
Sunday, April 07, 2013
G.K. Chesterton on Arguing with the Madman
"If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by things that go with good judgment. He is not hampered by a sense of humour or by clarity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing certain sane affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is in this respect a misleading one. The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason."
—G. K. Chesterton
Orthodoxy (New York: John Lane Co., 1909), p. 32
—G. K. Chesterton
Orthodoxy (New York: John Lane Co., 1909), p. 32
Topics:
apologetics
,
G.K. Chesterton
,
Quotes
,
reason
Sunday, June 10, 2012
C.S. Lewis on Reasoning to Atheism
"Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God."
—C.S. Lewis
The Case for Christianity, p. 32.
—C.S. Lewis
The Case for Christianity, p. 32.
Topics:
Atheism
,
C.S. Lewis
,
Quotes
,
reason
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Greg Koukl on Faith, Reason & Rationality
"So let's set the record straight. Faith is not the opposite of reason. The opposite of faith is unbelief. And reason is not the opposite of faith. The opposite of reason is irrationality. Do some Christians have irrational faith? Sure. Do some skeptics have unreasonable unbelief? You bet. It works both ways."
—Greg Koukl
In Is God Just a Human Invention? And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists by Sean McDowell & Jonathan Morrow (p. 30).
In Is God Just a Human Invention? And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists by Sean McDowell & Jonathan Morrow (p. 30).
Topics:
Faith
,
Greg Koukl
,
Quotes
,
reason
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Featured Book—True Reason: Christian Responses to the Challenge of Atheism
From the book's page at Amazon: While New Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and others proclaim loudly their rationality, clear thinking, and incontrovertible scientific arguments, others are beginning to wonder how genuinely rational they are. Have they proved anything? Have they argued convincingly? Have they pinpointed any real challenges to the credibility of Christian faith?
True Reason, edited by Tom Gilson and Carson Weitnauer, brings together a compendium of writers—philosophers, apologists, ethicists, theologians, historians—who look carefully at the best arguments atheism has and evaluate their validity, logic, assumptions, and naturalist conclusions.
Authors include noted philosopher William Lane Craig and popular apologist Sean McDowell, along with Gilson, Weitnauer, John DePoe, Chuck Edwards, Matthew Flannagan, Peter Grice, Randy Hardman, David Marshall, Glenn Sunshine, David Wood, and Samuel Youngs. Each chapter tackles a different atheist argument and brings reason fully into the discussion. See the book website.
A low price for a great ebook: $2.99
Get it here.
True Reason, edited by Tom Gilson and Carson Weitnauer, brings together a compendium of writers—philosophers, apologists, ethicists, theologians, historians—who look carefully at the best arguments atheism has and evaluate their validity, logic, assumptions, and naturalist conclusions.
Authors include noted philosopher William Lane Craig and popular apologist Sean McDowell, along with Gilson, Weitnauer, John DePoe, Chuck Edwards, Matthew Flannagan, Peter Grice, Randy Hardman, David Marshall, Glenn Sunshine, David Wood, and Samuel Youngs. Each chapter tackles a different atheist argument and brings reason fully into the discussion. See the book website.
A low price for a great ebook: $2.99
Get it here.
Topics:
Atheism
,
book recommendations
,
reason
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Sir Robert Anderson on Reason and Truth
"[W]hile Divine truth is spiritual, and can only be spiritually discerned, human error is natural, and can be met on its own ground. We cannot “reason” men into the kingdom of God, but by reasoning we can expose errors which prejudice them against it."
- Sir Robert Anderson, The Bible and Modern Criticism, 5th ed. (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1905), p. 27
[HT: Tim McGrew]
- Sir Robert Anderson, The Bible and Modern Criticism, 5th ed. (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1905), p. 27
[HT: Tim McGrew]
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Mortimer J. Adler on Faith and Reason
"I suspect that most of the individuals who have religious faith are content with blind faith. They feel no obligation to understand what they believe. They may even wish not to have their beliefs disturbed by thought. But if God in whom they believe created them with intellectual and rational powers, that imposes upon them the duty to try to understand the creed of their religion. Not to do so is to verge on superstition."
- Mortimer J. Adler
Mortimer J. Adler, "A Philosopher’s Religious Faith," in Kelly James-Clark (ed.), Philosophers Who Believe: The Spiritual Journeys of Eleven Leading Thinkers (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), p. 207.
- Mortimer J. Adler
Mortimer J. Adler, "A Philosopher’s Religious Faith," in Kelly James-Clark (ed.), Philosophers Who Believe: The Spiritual Journeys of Eleven Leading Thinkers (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), p. 207.
Topics:
Faith
,
Mortimer Adler
,
Quotes
,
reason
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Uninformed, Misinformed, Illogical, Incomplete
Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doren, in their classic book How to Read a Book (p.156-161), discuss the topic of agreeing or disagreeing with an author. There is one particular section that stands out for those who are seeking to become good critical readers, as well as good critical thinkers. The authors mention, "four ways in which a book can be adversely criticized." And their hope is that, "if a reader confines himself to making these points, he will be less likely to indulge in expressions of emotion or prejudice." These four points apply beyond just reading.
Topics:
critical thinking
,
logic
,
Mortimer Adler
,
reason
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Sunday Quote: Augustine on Faith and Understanding
"Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand."
- St. Augustine of Hippo
- St. Augustine of Hippo
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Book Review: Nonsense: A Handbook of Logical Fallacies by Robert Gula
Nonsense: A Handbook of Logical Fallacies by Robert Gula is a wonderful book which is both loaded with high quality content and easy to read. Falling into the categories of logic, critical thinking, and communication, this book is very useful to cutting to the core of the issue at hand and finding truth.
This is a book about logical (informal) fallacies. The idea is that by learning the common errors of thinking, one is in a better position to identify them and avoid the same errors. The author would point out that no one is immune to nonsense; we all make errors in thinking. The task here is to learn to avoid the pitfalls. Gula shows us the areas that arguments can go wrong:
What makes this book fun to read is that for every fallacy described the reader can instantly recognize the fallacy from personal experience (TV advertising, sales pitches, politics, etc.) One may find this book extremely helpful in sifting through the chaff of TV advertising and a large amount of popular sales tactics. At the same time, the reader may cringe when confronted with the fact that he too has often been guilty of the very fallacy. Perhaps most importantly, one’s own thinking is being corrected.
Some of the subcategories that Gula offers are the following: emotional language, propaganda, suggestion, irrelevance, diversion, ambiguity, incorrect inference, oversimplification, evasion, and a handful more. The writing is clear, simple, and very informative. The majority of the book deals with the fallacies, while later chapters focus on arguments, syllogisms and semantics.
Chapter 14, “More on Arguments,” is a notable chapter. Gula presents a number of helpful questions to ask yourself when getting into an argument: “…when you find yourself in an argument, the first question you should ask yourself is ‘Why am I arguing?’ and you should try to ascertain the motivation of your opponent.”2 He offers a number of reasons why people argue, and a list of many more questions to ask yourself about how you want the argument to end. The point is to determine not only why your opponent is arguing, but what your own motivations are; is it really the topic of the argument that you care about? Gula provides an excellent outline of questions you should address in order to clarify just what the argument is about and where the point of the disagreement actually lies.
The author’s goal is clearly to cut through the bad thinking, emotional and imprecise language, and to get to the point of the discussion. “To argue effectively requires skill, patience, delicacy, tact, diplomacy, sensitivity; it asks us to put aside our personalities and to address the issues; it requires us to be methodical, objective, analytic, and, above all, clear.”3
Although this is a book dealing with arguments, the author’s spirit and motivation is clearly not argumentative. Nonsense: A Handbook of Logical Fallacies is highly recommended for its readability, practicality, and high quality content.
1. Robert J. Gula, Nonsense: A Handbook of Logical Fallacies (Mount Jackson, VA: Axios Press, 2002), p. 32.
2. Ibid., p. 122.
3. Ibid., p. 128.
This is a book about logical (informal) fallacies. The idea is that by learning the common errors of thinking, one is in a better position to identify them and avoid the same errors. The author would point out that no one is immune to nonsense; we all make errors in thinking. The task here is to learn to avoid the pitfalls. Gula shows us the areas that arguments can go wrong:
When an argument is unsuccessful, it has probably gone wrong in one of the following areas: 1) The evidence has not been thorough; contradictory evidence has been overlooked or ignored; 2) The evidence has not been accurate; false or unsubstantiated or misleading statements have been claimed as fact; 3) The conclusion has not clearly and uncontrovertibly come form the evidence; the relationship between evidence and conclusion has not been a firm one.1The most common categories of informal fallacies are those of irrelevance, confusion, and oversimplification. The author spends time focusing on each one of these categories, splitting them into smaller subcategories as he goes along. Within this book he lists some 170 fallacies (not an official list), with many falling into multiple categories.
What makes this book fun to read is that for every fallacy described the reader can instantly recognize the fallacy from personal experience (TV advertising, sales pitches, politics, etc.) One may find this book extremely helpful in sifting through the chaff of TV advertising and a large amount of popular sales tactics. At the same time, the reader may cringe when confronted with the fact that he too has often been guilty of the very fallacy. Perhaps most importantly, one’s own thinking is being corrected.
Some of the subcategories that Gula offers are the following: emotional language, propaganda, suggestion, irrelevance, diversion, ambiguity, incorrect inference, oversimplification, evasion, and a handful more. The writing is clear, simple, and very informative. The majority of the book deals with the fallacies, while later chapters focus on arguments, syllogisms and semantics.
Chapter 14, “More on Arguments,” is a notable chapter. Gula presents a number of helpful questions to ask yourself when getting into an argument: “…when you find yourself in an argument, the first question you should ask yourself is ‘Why am I arguing?’ and you should try to ascertain the motivation of your opponent.”2 He offers a number of reasons why people argue, and a list of many more questions to ask yourself about how you want the argument to end. The point is to determine not only why your opponent is arguing, but what your own motivations are; is it really the topic of the argument that you care about? Gula provides an excellent outline of questions you should address in order to clarify just what the argument is about and where the point of the disagreement actually lies.
The author’s goal is clearly to cut through the bad thinking, emotional and imprecise language, and to get to the point of the discussion. “To argue effectively requires skill, patience, delicacy, tact, diplomacy, sensitivity; it asks us to put aside our personalities and to address the issues; it requires us to be methodical, objective, analytic, and, above all, clear.”3
Although this is a book dealing with arguments, the author’s spirit and motivation is clearly not argumentative. Nonsense: A Handbook of Logical Fallacies is highly recommended for its readability, practicality, and high quality content.
1. Robert J. Gula, Nonsense: A Handbook of Logical Fallacies (Mount Jackson, VA: Axios Press, 2002), p. 32.
2. Ibid., p. 122.
3. Ibid., p. 128.
Topics:
Book Reviews
,
critical thinking
,
fallacies
,
logic
,
reason
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
The Mind and the Heart MP3 Audio
This concise, 3-minute audio clip demonstrates some very good insights about how important it is to develop the Christian mind. In addition, it sheds light on why some leave the faith.
3-minute MP3 Audio here.
Source: the theology program, lecture 1.
Enjoy.
3-minute MP3 Audio here.
Source: the theology program, lecture 1.
Enjoy.
Topics:
apologetics
,
Atheism
,
audio
,
christianity
,
mp3
,
personal
,
reason