Friday Roundup

Bullies indeed…

Looks like a good book

Two sides to the same modernist coin…

“But as the “Enlightened” West would export this new world through gunpoint, it is hardly surprising that its own mirror image would arise to confront it. ISIS and other fundamentalist terrorist groups are the heretics of the dominant modernist orthodoxy. No less modern than their neo-liberal counterparts, they seek to thoroughly eradicate those “outside” the borders of their violently imposed, self-enclosed, homogeneous system.  What they seek to found is not a new religious époque, but yet another modernity under the totalitarian banner of a new exclusivism.”

Looks like another good book

More on miracles

Something important to keep in mind regarding how we even approach or think about miracles:

2. Miracles and Worldview
“The outcome of any discussion of miracles seems to depend greatly on our worldview. The usual theistic view of the world is one that presumes the existence of an omnipotent God who, while transcending nature, is nevertheless able to act, or to express his will, within the natural world. Clearly belief in miracles is already plausible if our enquiry may presume this view of things.”

Also important to keep in mind…

“If I start from the brute facts of nature, I personally am unable to construct a tapestry that is both rigorous and rich enough to make sufficient sense of the world. By contrast, if I assume a divine will and purpose behind the world I believe that I can construct a much more compelling tapestry that incorporates all of the threads of human existence. Within that purposeful world, the case for Christianity is much more persuasive.
To use a famous quote from C.S. Lewis: ‘I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen-not only because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else.’
It is the sum total of all those arguments that convinces me of the veracity of biblical miracles. Nevertheless, I recognize that no matter how cogent, say, the historical evidence for the resurrection is, if I start from a different worldview, as Martin and Rudolph Bultmann do, then it will be virtually impossible to accept the existence of biblical miracles. (In the end I think this is what Hume is really saying). Miracles cannot be interpreted independently from the theological context in which they function. They are part of a package deal.”
Perspective is everything…


As to recent events, all our love and prayers to those in Paris, Beirut, Africa, Mali, and wherever…we also pray for those who hate, who consider themselves our enemies, we pray for peace and we pray for the grace to love those who hate us and that we all might be saved.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. -Martin Luther King, Jr.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Friday Roundup

  1. Burk says:

    Hi, Darrell-

    Per the third link, you seem to have completely lost the thread on what modernism means. Is ISIS fundamentalist? Does it explicitly draw on its traditional historical and theological precedents from the founding of Islam? Answers to both are yes. Is its desire for a caliphate, and world (or at least muslim) government under sharia reflecting the original muslim behavior in the few hundred years after founding? Yes again. While ISIS may use the internet, and airplanes, etc., the idea of using terror is far, far, from modernist, (the original assassins were islamic, though antiquity is shot through with terrorism on all sides) and nor is the rest of its ideology.

    On miracles, I wouldn't, if I were you, want to open this can of worms all over again, after closing the last set of comments. You made yourself look foolish enough there.

    “One of our best tools for investigating hypotheses is to ask what we should expect if they were true. If we try this with theism, a cosmic ban on divine intervention is hardly what we would predict. What a strange thing it would be if the creator of the universe were somehow locked out of his own creation, unable to do what even the least of his creatures may do, to make his presence known! St. Paul’s rhetorical question is still pointed today: Why should anyone think it incredible that God should raise the dead?”

    Again, given god, then pink ponies and the rest of it. On the other hand, science, as currently constituted, with its current stock of facts & theory, stands unanimously and definitively against the probability of miracles given questionable data & theory, i.e. theology.

    “The short answer is that atheism might be wrong. Even those who strongly suspect that there is no God should not close themselves off from contrary evidence.”

    Ha!?! What is the evidence? Popularity? Intuition? Strength of belief? Then why are you not Muslim instead? The hard fact of the matter is that, under rigorous observation, miracles never happen. Yet in fairy tales, they happen all the time. Why is that?

    “On the other hand, claims still left standing after we have applied these criteria may fairly be said to deserve a closer look. And if those skeptics would follow up with equal honesty and with the seriousness that the issues seem to merit on any that really do appear to meet the criteria, then let the epistemic chips fall where they may.”

    Every possible claim of the miraculous has been investigated, from Mary on toast to asteroids. Some are real (lightning, asteroids) and have natural, regular explanations, and the rest are not, or remain claims, due to impossibiilty of investigation. There is no shortage of scientific interest, let alone general and tabloid interest, in miracuous claims. Bring them on. Only they never seem to pan out. Why? The epsitemic chips have already fallen, but this philosopher doesn't seem to hear.


  2. Darrell says:


    As to the link regarding ISIS, clearly you didn't get his point-not even close-he's notes nothing regarding the internet or airplanes. You don't even know what “modernity” means. Try again. As to the rest, just more question-begging nonsense and such only makes you look foolish both now and in previous conversations. Nothing new there. And the way I closed that previous conversation made it fairly clear who had opened a can of worms and who's points were made (or not made) but I am happy to leave that up to outside observers able to follow the entire thread and actually understand it.



Comments are closed.