Christian Fideism

Christianity is not based on historical truth; rather, it offers us a historical narrative and says: now believe! But not, believe this narrative with the belief appropriate to a historical narrative, rather: believe, through thick and thin! You should not take the same attitude to it as you take to other historical narratives. There is nothing paradoxical about that. The historical accounts in the Gospel, might historically speaking, be demonstrably false yet belief would lose nothing by this. Because religion is a self-contained and primarily expressive enterprise, governed by its own internal logic or "grammar" and is a whole worldview. Religion is logically cut off from other aspects of life; since religious concepts and discourse are essentially self-referential; and religion can't be criticized from an external (i.e., non-religious) point of view. Because divine intervention can always play a role in the historical data. Trying to prove god with logical or historical data will always be in vain as it relies upon some form of presuppositions. Since you can make any set of data fit your worldview. Which is fine and even necessary.

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    So you just have blind faith?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, like every belief system some form of presuppositions are necessary.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        wow real convincing

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    couldn't this be applied to any religion? what makes christianity better or more true than buddhism, islam, judaism, hinduism, zoroastrianism, shinto, sikhism, paganism, tengriism, baha'i, etc.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, but I have faith in Christianity.

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >The historical accounts in the Gospel, might historically speaking, be demonstrably false
    >religion is a self-contained and primarily expressive enterprise
    Heretical
    >Trying to prove god with logical or historical data will always be in vain as it relies upon some form of presuppositions.
    Yes it does, so does secularism which is not specially privileged as a worldview. The difference is the Christian has a philosophical self-awareness. We can prove God with logic, history, or the drying of paint because Christian presuppositions are necessary to the intelligibility of everything. When the unbeliever uses logic, he admits God exists and he is condemned before Him. It is the unbeliever who must be driven away from reason, for faith and reason do not stand together, but reason stands upon faith.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Christian presuppositions are necessary to the intelligibility of everything
      how so? I genuinely want to know how you justify this claim.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        That is a far more complicated subject than a single sentence question implies, but the gist of it is that non-Christian presuppositions are inevitably incoherent and intrinsically false. For example, the presupposition that matter is all that exists leads to its own falsehood, since if only matter exists laws of logic do not exist, as they are not made of matter. And that means that while it's true that only matter exists, it's also true that not only matter exists, since the only basis for distinguishing these is not real (and it also is real). This is the direct consequence of the fact that God exists, that man is created in His image, and the order of creation is imposed by His design, so that it is impossible to make sense of anything apart from Him.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >This is the direct consequence of the fact that God exists, that man is created in His image, and the order of creation is imposed by His design, so that it is impossible to make sense of anything apart from Him.
          I don't see how that follows. it's not as if you can't have a non-materialist philosophy without believing in the christian god, there's more options than just christianity and materialist atheism.
          even granting some sort of god exists, I don't see how you get from there to an all powerful, unchanging, triune god who exists outside of time, created the universe ex nihilo and sent his only begotten son to die for the forgivness of sins as the only option that makes sense.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >We can prove God with logic
      Not really. Because all arguments for god presuppose god so aren't great.

      For example the Cosmological argument is just special pleading. You can have an infinite universe or ex-nihilo start without god. The Moral argument isn't great either as morality could exist without a God and not exist with a God. You can have morality based on agency without god. Pretty much all of ethical philosophy addresses the vast number of moralities possible without religion/theism. And Divine command theory is just ethical subjectivism anyway so wouldn't be a great argument. The Teleological argument isn't an argument as teleology could exist without a God and not exist with a God. Which is also assuming that there is Teleology in the world anyway with this argument. The Ontological argument is just Special pleading and also falls prey to the Survivorship bias.

      My point is that trying to prove god with logical or historical data will always be in vain as it relies upon some form of presupposition. Since you can make any set of data fit your worldview. Which is fine and even necessary

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >Because all arguments for god presuppose god so aren't great.
        That's exactly why they are great. All arguments for God presuppose Him, and so do all arguments against Him, and all other arguments for any given thing.
        >the Cosmological argument is just special pleading.
        Special pleading occurs when a universal principle is given arbitrary exception in the case of one's position. I'm pointing this out, because this statement makes me think you don't know what it means.
        >morality could exist without a God
        Really? How's that?
        >not exist with a God
        I don't defend "a god". I defend the one true and living Christian Triune God. As far as I'm concerned, there's no difference between a god and no god.
        >Pretty much all of ethical philosophy addresses the vast number of moralities possible without religion/theism
        Pretty much all philosophy is bunk
        >And Divine command theory is just ethical subjectivism anyway
        I would also say it's a strawman of biblical ethics
        >The Teleological argument isn't an argument as teleology could exist without a God and not exist with a God.
        Teleology means design, as in actual design, as instilled by a designer. I say this, because this statement again makes me think you don't know what it means.
        >The Ontological argument is just Special pleading and also falls prey to the Survivorship bias.
        Survivorship bias occurs when one arbitrarily excludes data because it failed to pass a certain success condition. I, once again, say this because I don't think you know what the words you're using mean.
        >Since you can make any set of data fit your worldview.
        As can the unbeliever

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >That's exactly why they are great. All arguments for God presuppose Him, and so do all arguments against Him, and all other arguments for any given thing.
          No. Arguments against God don’t presuppose him.
          >Special pleading occurs when a universal principle is given arbitrary exception in the case of one's position. I'm pointing this out, because this statement makes me think you don't know what it means.
          The Cosmological argument assumes an Aristotelian view about causation, that causes need to have previous causes and you also have to presuppose an "uncaused causer" as a brute fact.
          >morality could exist without a God
          Based on agency, natural inclinations, best outcome, feelings, etc… there is a lot of ways.
          >I don't defend "a god". I defend the one true and living Christian Triune God. As far as I'm concerned, there's no difference between a god and no god.
          Which you an I assume. Also how is this relevant? All of the arguments for god also work for a non- Triune God.
          >Pretty much all philosophy is bunk
          Maybe so but stop trying to defend your points logically then.
          >I would also say it's a strawman of biblical ethics
          Not really it’s just the subjective view of an agent(In this case the Triune god). I do agree with biblical ethics though.
          >Teleology means design, as in actual design, as instilled by a designer. I say this, because this statement again makes me think you don't know what it means.
          Teleology means that a thing has an inherent purpose so doesn't necessarily require god. And anyway Aristotle didn't use god to prove Teleology and used naturalistic proofs for it. Things can have purposes ex-nihlo.
          1/2

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >Arguments against God don’t presuppose him
            Yes, they do.
            >The Cosmological argument assumes an Aristotelian view about causation, that causes need to have previous causes and you also have to presuppose an "uncaused causer" as a brute fact.
            Assuming this was accurate (it isn't) it still would not be special pleading. You also seem to be unaware there's more than one "cosmological argument".
            >Based on agency, natural inclinations, best outcome, feelings, etc… there is a lot of ways.
            How vague and meaningless.
            >Also how is this relevant?
            Because you said "you could have no morality with a god", which you realize is flatly irrelevant when you realize "a god" is not the subject.
            >All of the arguments for god also work for a non- Triune God.
            No they don't.
            >Maybe so but stop trying to defend your points logically then.
            Why?
            >Not really it’s just the subjective view of an agent
            Right, but this description is a strawman of biblical ethics.
            >Teleology means that a thing has an inherent purpose
            In this context, purpose means the same thing as design.
            >Things can have purposes ex-nihlo.
            Now I'm not sure you know what the word "purpose" means.

            >Survivorship bias occurs when one arbitrarily excludes data because it failed to pass a certain success condition. I, once again, say this because I don't think you know what the words you're using mean.
            The Ontological argument assumes that the organization of the universe must prove God instead of a naturalistic explanation. So special pleading. And some forms of the argument use the existences of humans as proof which is a Survivorship bias.
            >As can the unbeliever
            I don’t disagree with this.
            2/3

            >The Ontological argument assumes that the organization of the universe must prove God instead of a naturalistic explanation. So special pleading. And some forms of the argument use the existences of humans as proof which is a Survivorship bias.
            This paragraph clearly proves you know neither what an ontological argument is, nor what special pleading is, nor what survivorship bias is.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >Survivorship bias occurs when one arbitrarily excludes data because it failed to pass a certain success condition. I, once again, say this because I don't think you know what the words you're using mean.
          The Ontological argument assumes that the organization of the universe must prove God instead of a naturalistic explanation. So special pleading. And some forms of the argument use the existences of humans as proof which is a Survivorship bias.
          >As can the unbeliever
          I don’t disagree with this.
          2/3

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Why do you believe?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Community and an emotional connection.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Do you actually take the religion seriously then? Belief implies that you have a sincere conviction that the matter of fact is true.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >Do you actually take the religion seriously then?
          Yes.
          >Belief implies that you have a sincere conviction that the matter of fact is true
          I don't deny that. I just believe that you can't prove god with logic or historical data because it relies upon some form of presupposition when constructing a narrative about those arguments. But I believe all of the tenets of Christianity as truth due to personal experience and I also will it to be true.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            If you believe it's true due to personal experiencing then you're not a fideist, you accept it on account of empirical evidence. Willful belief is insincere and cannot really be considered belief in the true sense of the word.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >If you believe it's true due to personal experiencing then you're not a fideist, you accept it on account of empirical evidence.
            I would disagree. I viewed my personal experience like that after a few years. After I learned about the Christian narrative of reality. But I realized that it is not the only way to view that experience but I will it to be so. And anyway empirical evidence needs a narrative/framework to even be understood. I still believe just because I have faith.

            >Willful belief is insincere and cannot really be considered belief in the true sense of the word.
            How so? My brain emotionally reacts the same way as a believer does. You can self program yourself to believe anything with the same convictions of a believer. Your brain is easily programmable like that.

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    How many fricking threads of:
    >Christianity vs Atheism
    Can there be?

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *