Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
I...Often a young earth creationist's (for the sake of example) claims can be refuted simply because they are flawed reasoning. And Collins does this in his book. But then he will use the same flawed reasoning to support his own conclusions.
It's human, we all do it.
Flawed reasoning also doesn't make one wrong, but it does make one's conclusions invalid (in the way a stopped clock can happen to be correct, but it's not a valid way to tell time).
|
You are describing what I perceive to be a huge problem for theists in the modern world.
One of the cherished elements at the heart of all theism is the celebration of mystery as an end in itself, but this is now in conflict with the goals of science to resolve mysteries. Since our society is so deeply informed by science, many theists run into the contradictory position of wanting to be a rationalist, while simultaneously holding fast to precepts of faith that are grounded in our subjective experiences.
So, this is where I find myself at present where it comes to the rationalistic enterprise of justifying theism and my religion: There are two dominant trends in modern apologetics for "defending the faith": an evidentiary approach, and a presuppositional one. I think the latter is popular in some circles because it very clearly acknowledges the problem I have alluded to, and it attempts to bypass rational argumentation on the faulty grounds of shifting arguments to ontological and foundational matters. On the other side, an evidentialist theist is no better off, because his position is not defensible from a balanced appraisal of the evidence. So in the end, I am still a theist, even though I can not provide an evidentiary account for my beliefs, nor can I justify them as legitimate presuppositions. Much like I suspect Collins feels (In have not read his book), I find myself in a difficult position of wanting to both celebrate and eliminate mystery.