I am so sorry I do not have the time in this post to delve into the details, but in my reading today I came across posts on Atheism and on Calvinism. @ Parableman @ Evangelical Outpost @ Skeptic Rant among others ( as the saying goes: too many to list…)
I was impressed by the thought of how they are so similar in approach- not quite two sides of a coin… but not terribly far from that. They are insistant upon proofs, but proofs handicapped by their own particular set of givens. Because while we may use testimonial proofs in many avenues of life, predicated upon the trustworthiness or accuracy of the witness- this is not kosher for either Calvinists or for Atheists.
Yet neither see that they are not allowing, either, for tools beyond their present grasp. In the case of Calvinists, that of God’s power to hold both omniscience and protect parameters of free agency, and in the case of Atheists that the rules and tools of physical proofs may not be the same as that for the spiritual.
Skeptic Rant: I Am Not an Atheist
Furthermore, no one can tell me about GOD because any experience that they may (or may not) have had with “GOD” are their experience alone and cannot be conveyed to me without distorting their experience through their own human limitations. Any scripture that attests to the nature of GOD can only be viewed as hear say.
IOW, the idea that one cannot relate to an idea makes it moot. There is no recognition here of the overwhelming weight of both time and multiplied personal accounts. Which is, even in my own estimation, a weak argument, and one I wouldn’t use for proving anything, but it would give me pause in the use of such forward submission of such a statement. Being itself so subjective….
In all fairness, this post I quoted from was not arguing anything perse, but a personal belief statement… much as the last post from EO that elicited my comments were more manifesto than argument ( although I see that Joe Carter is now elaborating on some of his points…which is where the similarity of the atheist and the Calvinist first stepped forward in my thinking).
…what might be evidence for some (e.g. religious experience) is not evidence for those without such experiences. That leaves things that need to be explained — historical events (e.g. miracles) available to all or some fact that can be pointed at. The main competitor to traditional theism is naturalism, which roughly says that the natural world is all there is (or, as some would prefer to say, what natural science can tell us is all we can know about). A naturalist insists that science can explain anything that looks like a miracle. We end up with conflicting analyses of the same events. Theists might claim that only divine influence can explain it, while naturalists claim that science, and ultimately physics, can account for it, but we just donâ€™t know enough yet to give the explanation.
You know what my biggest contention would be for the naturalist view? that they can submit theoretical explanations, but they cannot replicate them, which puts them on the same base as the theists. Like the arguments on the existance of God, those on His intervention by miracles are both a type of faith, it depends on which you are predisposed to believe in.
Man by his wisdom is stymied in trying to prove or explain God.
Calvinists on the other hand have a whole different problem…. but as I said, sorry, don’t have time to go further right now. But don’t let that stop the reader from his own discussion or points….
comments open, enjoy or not, as you will. ( But if you have any interest look at the linked posts…ok?)