Achronos
What's so good about Cincinnati? You like it? You think Cincinnati is cool? I've never heard anyone say, 'I'm going to Cincinnati on vacation.'
Site Supporter
Warned
Hoplitarches
 Offline
Faith: Building Steam with a Grain of Salt
Jurisdiction: Just as little is seen in pure light as in pure darkness.
Posts: 9,332
And we gave him the Rolling Stone cover?!
|
 |
« on: January 04, 2011, 01:28:29 PM » |
|
What are your thoughts regarding his works? http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServerI am quite a follower of him on youtube, I also enjoy reading the number of articles he has. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
“Without music, life would be a mistake.”
“The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope.”
"Face the facts of being what you are, for that is what changes what you are."
"We see at once that the words absolute, divine, eternal, and so on do not express what is implied in them.
|
|
|
CRCulver
Elder
Offline
Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Finland and Romanian Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,159
St Stephen of Perm, missionary to speakers of Komi
|
|
« Reply #1 on: January 04, 2011, 02:29:21 PM » |
|
As a philosopher of religion, I don't think he's on the level of a Swinburne or Plantinga. Quite a few weaknesses have been found in his arguments, but instead of re-examining his arguments and making a stronger case, he just repeats the same old thing again and again.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
Offline
Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,204
|
|
« Reply #2 on: January 04, 2011, 02:56:21 PM » |
|
Sorry, didn't get any further than the opening page, with it's accompanying images. Teeth just a little too white, hair's just a little too perfectly manufactured, his ties are just a little too patterned (though well-tied. I respect a nice full windsor). The whole thing screamed pre-packaged evangelical.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are." TH White Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy! |
|
|
MyMapleStory
Member
Offline
Faith: Approaching Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Will probably be Greek
Posts: 181
|
|
« Reply #3 on: January 05, 2011, 06:12:42 AM » |
|
I can't judge him in comparison to other scholars in his same area of expertise, but he is a good source for the Christian who wants to get a basic understanding of some of the more popular arguments for Christianity.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Asteriktos
|
|
« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2011, 02:43:31 AM » |
|
As a philosopher of religion, I don't think he's on the level of a Swinburne or Plantinga. Quite a few weaknesses have been found in his arguments, but instead of re-examining his arguments and making a stronger case, he just repeats the same old thing again and again.
Are his arguments for Christianity closer to a popular level than that of Swinburne? I tried reading Swinburne and did fine with most of it, but then he goes into that funky logic stuff and I have no clue what he's talking about. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Achronos
What's so good about Cincinnati? You like it? You think Cincinnati is cool? I've never heard anyone say, 'I'm going to Cincinnati on vacation.'
Site Supporter
Warned
Hoplitarches
Offline
Faith: Building Steam with a Grain of Salt
Jurisdiction: Just as little is seen in pure light as in pure darkness.
Posts: 9,332
And we gave him the Rolling Stone cover?!
|
|
« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2011, 03:08:19 AM » |
|
It kind of surprises me Swinburne is an EO Christian.
I think the reason he keeps repeating himself is because Ive yet to see one debate tear down his opening statement and replace it with a better one. The Peter Atkins one was fantastic, the man didn't even try to attempt it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
“Without music, life would be a mistake.”
“The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope.”
"Face the facts of being what you are, for that is what changes what you are."
"We see at once that the words absolute, divine, eternal, and so on do not express what is implied in them.
|
|
|
|
jnorm888
|
|
« Reply #6 on: February 04, 2011, 04:47:29 AM » |
|
Greg Bahnsen was one of the best presup apologists. He mastered that style and did pretty well with it. He past away in 1995. http://www.sermonaudio.ca/bahnsen/BahnsenVsStein_TheGreatDebate-DoesGodExist.mp3 (the famous debate he was mostly known for) |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 04, 2011, 04:50:32 AM by jnorm888 »
|
Logged
|
"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D. http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
theo philosopher
Member
Offline
Faith: Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 315
|
|
« Reply #7 on: February 07, 2011, 04:38:43 AM » |
|
I sometimes think Bill is exactly what many college-level/college educated people need to read. When it comes to apologetics, I tend to be far more pragmatic than dogmatic.
For instance, in the philosophy or religion I will always prefer Swinburne, Plantinga, or even MacIntyre (I know he's in Ethics, but much of what he says can easily cross over into religion) over Bill. At the same time, I can't hand Plantinga's "God and Other Minds" to a sophomore in college who is doubting his faith or questioning Christianity; I can, however, give him "A Reasonable Faith" and guide him through it.
I still think we're missing too many Continental philosophers of Religion who are Christians (I purposefully exclude Gianni Vattimo, John Caputo, Peter Rollins, or others). I'm not necessarily referring to those in the neo-Marxist or post-Marxist tradition, but simply someone who can write in an existential format and is easy for the public to understand. The philosophy of religion is almost exclusively analytical (if one seeks to be orthodox that is), and I think that's a shame since Christianity is an existential religion.
Anyway, I digress. I think Bill's works are fantastic for college students. He doesn't offer a lot of original thoughts and he's not a philosophic innovator (though he tries to be). But that's not a bad thing. Rather, he's a synthesizer and takes from different philosophies to paint a bigger picture. This means that his explanations will be less technical and a bit more sloppy, which is fine and affords him the chance to not clean it up (in certain situations) because it would force him to get bogged down in the details. I myself am a synthesizer when it comes to philosophy (though I do have two theories that I want to develop at some point that would be innovative, even though they're ancient), so I'm certainly not putting him down by labeling him a synthesizer. Few people can be innovators like Plantinga (who's concept of warrant was almost entirely new) or MacIntyre (who's virtue ethics helped found a revolution, though in all fairness Philippa Foot really worked on it prior to MacIntyre).
The three issues I have with Bill's philosophy are as follows:
1) His attitude and demeanor when debating atheists, especially hostile ones
2) His over-reliance on the Kalaam argument, to the exclusion of other cosmological arguments (likewise, I just don't think the Kalaam is that strong as it has to consistently be unpacked)
3) He's too Aristotelean and doesn't allow for mystery as a legitimate answer, leading to some questionable beliefs concerning God and time. In fairness, he would say that he does allow for mystery, but it really doesn't come across in his writings or debates
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 07, 2011, 04:42:08 AM by theo philosopher »
|
Logged
|
“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus
|
|
|
|
Ortho_cat
|
|
« Reply #8 on: February 07, 2011, 07:49:15 AM » |
|
As a philosopher of religion, I don't think he's on the level of a Swinburne or Plantinga. Quite a few weaknesses have been found in his arguments, but instead of re-examining his arguments and making a stronger case, he just repeats the same old thing again and again.
agreed. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
